Talk:Libertarian socialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article Libertarian socialism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
We know that many regard libertarianism as incompatible with socialism.


Contents

[edit] Template:Libertarianism

Hello there folks. Recently, Josephholsten edited the article so that it now includes {{libertarianism}}. I oppose the inclusion of this template, because

  1. The article already includes two "Politics series on"-templates, the one on Socialism (where Libertarian socialism prominently appears) and the one on Anarchism. Having three of them is just... too much.
  2. The Libertarianism article and template deals exclusively with right-wing libertarianism: the Libertarianism article has a notice at the top reading This article is about the individualist philosophy, which is supportive of private property. For other uses (including political parties associated with libertarianism) see Libertarianism (disambiguation). The only exception is left-libertarianism, which seems to deal primarily with agorism, an anarcho-capitalist ideology. The relation of the template to this article is as thus minimal if any.

Comments? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion per Jobjörn. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 09:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Not sure. I think the libertarianism article (and its template) is deeply flawed precisely because it more or less denies that there is such a thing as left libertarianism or libertarian socialism. The left libertarianism article is even worse, as it reduces left libertarianism to a couple of bizarre crackpot anarcho-capitalist theories that most left libertarians haven't heard of. Given this, the template on this page feels wrong, but if those issues were addressed, then I might be more inclined to let it be there. BobFromBrockley 11:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll remove it for now, re-insertion should be considered when the issues mentioned by Bob above have been addressed. "bizarre crackpot anarcho-capitalist theories" is phrase of the day. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

We should just place libertarian socialism under the socialism banner and anarchism banner, since it directly relates to both, and since the article itself says many people use "anarchism" and "libertarian socialism" interchangeably.72.78.8.51 (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two changes

  1. I removed the following: "The most popular web newsletter, which purports to hold libertarian socialist values is Dissident Voice[citation needed]." This is partly because its web popularity is an uncited claim, and more importantly because it does not purport to be libertarian socialist but as "radical" (and, indeed, some of its writers, like James Petras are Marxist-Leninists...
  2. I changed the list of "prominent anarchists and libertarian socialists" to simply the latter, as that is what this page is meant to be about. BobFromBrockley 12:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should we Merge this page with Left-libertarianism?

I suggest we merge the two pages, using the structure of this article and the title of the other article because (1) we can't really discuss left-libertarianism (in general) without discussing libertarian socialism (in specific), (2) the LL article covers two minor traditions, but can't relate these to each other without relating these to LS (as well as RL), (3) merging these would work better than disambiguating these to each other. Jacob Haller 06:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Against. Particularly against re-naming this article to "left-libertarianism" because libertarian socialism is a notable subject (and distinguishable tradition) of its own and thus deserves its own article. I also feel that the left-libertarian article is a poor article. There is not really much in it that I would keep. Although this only suggests to me that the "left-libertarianism" deserves a serious re-write.BernardL 12:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Against. The current Left-libertarianism article could use some work, but it deals with a couple of specific movements which use that specific label. I don't think we will improve the clarity of any of the articles by lumping together even more of the things that are arguably "left" and "libertarian." Libertatia 16:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Against. The Left-libertarianism article covers two meanings which have little to do with libertarian socialism. Agorism, covered in that article, is a form of anarcho-capitalism. If anything, a disambiguation at the beginning of the left-libertarianism article would link to libertarian socialism, and the article text would omit the socialist meaning entirely. PhilLiberty 03:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then perhaps we should replace LL with a disambiguation page leading to LS, Agorism, Geolibertarianism, and perhaps specific subsets of LS or specific issues concerning LL (inclusive or exclusive of LS)? Jacob Haller 03:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I prefer this solution. I guess the question is: is there such a thing as left libertarianism that is different from libertarian socialism, apart from the two minor and very specific theories the left lib article currently refers to? If there is, then the LL article needs re-writing; if there isn't, then the LL article should be turned into a disamb page. BobFromBrockley 13:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Against, but yes it does need to be re-written. —Christopher Mann McKay 05:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we remove the merger box things now? BobFromBrockley 15:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchist norwegian embassy?

Long time ago i´ve come to this weird norwegian website anarchy.no which claims to mantain an anarchist embassy. What´s that all about? Thanks for any help. --201.83.178.101 16:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea and I doubt anyone else here does either. Try asking them - the website is still around. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, i think i would have a more npov if i didnt ask for the guy who owns the website. =P --201.83.178.101 05:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Hilarious site, thanks for the link. I think it's either a hoax or a small group of extreme sectarians. They claim to have an "International Anarchist Tribunal" which can kick people out of the international anarchist movement by issuing "brown cards" - in accordance with "the Oslo Convention" (?!). They claim to be the "Anarchist International" but they do not list any affiliated groups - this is not the IWA/AIT or the IAF. -Steve

[edit] Anarchism/libertarian socialism

Although many people argue that libertarian socialism and social anarchism are the same thing, it is important that this article is clearly about libertarian socialism. There are a number of places the article doesn't do this. For example:

The non-violent anarchist movement today consists of organizations such as BAAM, Food Not Bombs, or Anarchist Black Cross.

The first of these I don't know what it is; the other two do not define themselves as libertarian socialist. I'm deleting this. If someone can find better examples, put em in. BobFromBrockley 14:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Totally disputed

I have already stated in my objections in edit summaries but Jacob Haller asked to explain them here too. My objection is that this article is making unsupported and factuality incorrect claims, whose removal is not being allowed by some editors. I'm primarily referring to claim that anarchism is a libertarian socialist philosophy, but also to several other unsourced claims such that Proudhon's phrase "Property is theft" describes his view on the nature of ownership in relation to freedom. Also, it is said that individualist anarchism is a form of libertarian socialism, and at the same time it is said that libertarian socialism is a group of philosophies which want to create society without hierarchies through abolition of private property. That is contradictory to the statement of the most prominent individualist anarchist, Benjamin Tucker who said: Anarchism is a word without meaning, unless it includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free market - that is, private property. Whoever denies private property is of necessity an Archist. How can individualist anarchism be considered a libertarian socialist philosophy when its main figure says that private property is a basic component of any meaningful anarchism? -- Vision Thing -- 13:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

that anarchism is a libertarian socialist philosophy... well, if we exclude anarcho-capitalism, it is libertarian socialist. Tucker's Armies that Overlap goes into the definitional problems here. As Tucker concludes: "Of course there is a sense in which every Anarchist may be said to be a Socialist virtually, inasmuch as usury rests on authority and to destroy the latter is to destroy the former. But it scarcely seems proper to give the name Socialist to one who is such unconsciously, neither desiring, intending, nor knowing it." Are there any suggestion which don't involve tacking exceptions to each reference to anarchism? Jacob Haller 22:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
You can't exclude anarcho-capitalism from anarchism without a major dispute. See Talk:Anarchism for former discussions about that issue. -- Vision Thing -- 12:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
My view is that it is wrong to call libertarian socialism an anarchist philosophy, and it is wrong to exclude anarcho-capitalism from anarchism. There is a large sub-class of libertarian socialists who are anarchists, and vice versa, but there are clearly libertarian socialists who are not anarchists (they favour a minimal state rather than no state) and there are clearly anarchists who are not libertarian socialists (either they are passionately in favour of private property, or they see socialism as a concept too entangled with the staet to want to call themselves socialists). BobFromBrockley 09:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Simple grammatic analysis of the term shows that Libertarian is not the main point, but rather a descriptor of the veriety of Socialism. --24.107.9.33 (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC) aka MilquetoastCJW
You'd have to exclude post-left anarchism (Bob Black), and anarcho-primitivism (John Zerzan) as well. That's three schools of anarchism which aren't socialist, at least in the traditional sense of socialism being worker-oriented (no "workers" in either philosophy). Left-libertarianism, libertarian socialism and anarchism are deeply related, but certainly not overlapping. I would rather have different articles where the unique character of each can shine through, interrelated by links, rather than one big hodge-podge mess.72.78.8.51 (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
that Proudhon's phrase "Property is theft" describes his view on the nature of ownership in relation to freedom... In my interpretation, Proudhon means that property includes several different institutions; some (possession) protect freedom (Property is liberty) and others (property) undermine possession (Property is theft).
In other words, Proudhon accepts the aim of property (in classical/radical liberal thought) and proposes possession, which achieves the same aim, is more amenable to overlapping claims, and is less amenable to rent/interest/profit/monopoly as a drop-in replacement for property. Jacob Haller 22:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Colin Ward's interpretation as explained here. In any case, simply stating that Proudhon's view on the nature of ownership can be described with that phrase is completely misleading and wrong. -- Vision Thing -- 12:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
it is said that individualist anarchism is a form of libertarian socialism, and at the same time it is said that libertarian socialism is a group of philosophies which want to create society without hierarchies through abolition of private property. The mutualism section partly clarifies this. Jacob Haller 22:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Overall, the intro statement about private property could be redone. I suggest tagging the appropriate passages for further reference. Jacob Haller 22:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
One of the main problems of this article is original research. All provided references are for particular movements, there is no reference to any work about libertarian socialism in general. That is probably because such work doesn't exist, since libertarian socialism is not a particularly notable ideology. -- Vision Thing -- 12:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you please come up with some specific criticisms? Simply referring to the article as original research does nothing to help us improve it. Are you saying that ALL of it is original research? Etcetc 00:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms Section Incoherent

An earlier editor used the term collectivism in its Randian pejorative sense. Many readers will interpret the term collectivism in its libertarian-socialist sense, i.e. to refer to Bakunin's and similar systems. It may as well be in another language. Can anyone go through the criticisms section and clean up the mess? Jacob Haller 22:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Property is Theft/Freedom/Improssible

The article currently states that "Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who is often considered the father of modern anarchism, coined the phrase "Property is theft" to describe his view on the nature of ownership in relation to freedom." Both Vision Thing and muself have expressed issues with this charactization of Proudhon's views. I suggest including, sourcing, and addressing the other statements, and discussing Proudhon's general view of property and possession. Jacob Haller 01:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

We should probably try to work up a standard paragraph to treat this wherever it comes up. The problem is that "property is theft" remained his belief to the end, but, from the beginning, he associated liberty with some balancing of property with countervailing forces ("communism" early and government later). In the past, I've encountered opposition to including mention of the "antimonies" and Proudhon's dialectical approach, but there really isn't any other way to succinctly cover the ground if you don't mention that aspect. Libertatia 18:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I have taken a couple sentences from the Proudhon article and transplanted them here to further clarify his views. I've also qualified the sentence about theft and indicated that his position was "complex". I figure further exploration should probably take place in his article or the mutualism one. Please rewrite it if you think its still lacking. Etcetc 06:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not FA

I've reverted the series of edits adding this article to featured status; ArticleHistory shows clearly it is not a Featured article, it failed twice, and in its current state, it would likely be a snowball fail if presented at WP:FAC today. Articles are only promoted to featured status by the Featured Article Director at WP:FAC after an extensive community review; I suggest thoroughly citing the article, then a peer review, followed by a nomination to WP:GAC before approaching WP:FAC.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The FA removal was (1) proposed due to certain editors' political opposition to libertarian socialism (see the archived discussion from this page) and (2) forced through without consensus despite Wikipedia policy. Jacob Haller 04:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if that's true, but it's not relevant. The article failed a subsequent FAC, and wouldn't pass FAC (or even GA for that matter) today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Its latest candidacy failed and that's all that's relevant here. A three year-old edit war over its status (when the FA process was much more loose) is no reason to unilaterally promote it now. Marskell 12:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed paragraph

This paragraph needs to be tightened up so that it reads less like editors opinion and more like an encyclopedia. In addition it is entirely unsourced, and I can't come up with adequate citations for it. I'm removing it to here until someone can fix it better than I can.

However, libertarian socialism has a more political connotation, while anarchism has grown into a much wider and more philosophical set of ideas. Some individuals no longer consider anarchism to refer to anything more than the absence of the state, consequently an ideology known as anarcho-capitalism has come about which would not fall under the category of libertarian socialism. However, non-capitalist anarchists view anarchism as a wider opposition to all forms of authority and not simply the formalized government. The phrase therefore has more of an anti-capitalist tone amongst most people whereas the term "anarchism" has a philosophical tone.[dubious – discuss] In addition, some prefer the name because anarchy is often (incorrectly) equated with chaos or lawlessness and can be a confusing word to use in political theory. Further, libertarian socialism includes currents of thought that argue for a minimal state, rather than for no state.

[This suggestion was made by EtcEtc] I agree with this. It is an incoherent and un-encyclopedic passage. BobFromBrockley 09:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section (2)

Though this article was improperly removed from FA status in the first place, a subsequent attempt to reintroduce it failed in part due to its supposedly being "too long". This is odd, since many FA articles are much longer, but on way to reduce the size of the article would be to move the criticism section to its own page. I'm pursuing this particular tactic because it was done for another FA, one that Sandy and Marskell have both voted on, so I assume its exactly the kind of thing they would want to see done.

In addition, that one section seems plagued by an edit war sponsored by Vision Thing and a lot of various now-banned sockpuppets, I'm sure they would hate to see a wiki article ruined by their own personal biases concerning the subject matter, and all of them have been fine and dandy with the same solution being pursued in the anarcho-capitalism article. So in brief there are three reasons for this move:

1. It fits the profile of a FA that people currently objecting to this page both voted on 2. It solves the length problem 3. It moves the warring off this article Etcetc 21:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is not too long. It is 33 KB of readable prose, calculated by Dr pda's prose size script, which is completely in line with WP:LENGTH. What the article urgently needs — if you're trying to aim towards FA — is to be cited. Further, POV splits of criticism are discouraged. Jimbo himself once said that criticism should be woven into the text to avoid POV splits; you can find that somewhere on the talk page of WP:Criticism. I doubt that exorcising criticism from the text will make it by WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
By exorcising criticism, you saved only 3KB in prose size — not a significant change, not needed. The real problem is seen right here (numbers after criticism was removed):
  • Prose size: 30KB
  • References: 1KB

The article is uncited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The length was only one of the reasons, if the article is not too long then I suppose that is yet another reason it should not have been removed from FA status. Again, I'm just trying to use a model that you and Marskell clearly feel is worthy. As you can see, I didn't actually "exorcise" the criticism section, I merely removed all the arguments that were unsourced editorialism and kept the single argument that was actually cited (albeit indirectly). The problem with the criticism section is not that it is POV, criticism usually is, it is that all the criticisms were being made up on the spot by the editors rather than researched and cited. Etcetc 01:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


Whatever the process to get to this point, the Criticism section of this article is woefully deficient. I realize that space and size are issues, so I've introduced a short paragraph that gives a summary of critiques that come from libertarian philosophers. The previous summary, which essentially states that libertarians think there need to be some restrictions on liberty, is not representative of some of the most prominent libertarian thinkers. Hopefully what I've added will bring more balance to this section of the text. 208.178.18.134 14:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section-by-Section review

[edit] Introductory Paragraphs

1st Paragraph:

  1. Can anyone identify sources for the definition? For the means? For the extension from political philosophy to a wider perspective? As it is, the only citation is for the quote at the end.
  2. It is possible to "abolish private property" without giving direct control of the means of production to the working class. Look at certain Marxist and Bellamyite ideas. Moreover, this definitely excludes Spooner's propertarian anarchism and Spangler's socialist agorism, and sidelines mutualism.

2nd Paragraph:

  1. Can anyone identify sources? Probably the same ones as for the 1st paragraph.
  2. Can we discuss what these means have in common, e.g. most are voluntary, many are decentralized?

3rd Paragraph:

  1. Can anyone identify sources? Jacob Haller 23:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


I've found a source for a definition very close to the one in the intro, so I reworked the intro a bit to more conform to the source. Its not perfect, but it should work till someone finds something better. Etcetc 02:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I've found a source for "the means" part. Its old and in spanish but it seems to fit the text pretty well, I reworked it just a bit. Etcetc 03:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
In order to account for the objection that private property can be abolished without giving direct control to the working class I changed the sentence to reflect that this is the purpose of the abolishment, rather than the sole method. I also changed the "giving" to "gaining", since libertarian socialism is not a vanguard ideology. Finally, I changed "other unpropertied classes" to "society as a whole" since the former seemed unwieldy and the later a little more comprehensible to folks lacking a marxist rhetorical glaze. Etcetc 03:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I found a nice Rudolf Rocker quote for the 2nd paragraph. Its makes reference specifically to the anarcho-syndicalists of spain, and then to anarcho-syndicalists in general finding their strength in trade unions rather than in political parties. It would be nice to find another quote that demonstrates the same for other decentralized organizations and other forms of libertarian socialism. Etcetc 03:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The Richard Porton source refers to William Reichert tying together Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Tucker all under the umbrella of libertarian socialism. I figure that covers anarcho-collectivism/communism/individualism all in one swoop, and mutualism by extension since it is a form of individualism, so I'm not going to bother sourcing each and every one. Etcetc 03:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I found a referance for social ecology as well. Etcetc 04:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overview

Messy passage here. IMHO, the currect revision is better than the original version:

The basic philosophy of libertarian socialism is summed up in the name: an anti-capitalist system of economic distribution (socialism) executed in a manner that attempts to maximize the liberty of individuals and minimize concentration of power or authority (libertarianism).

However, I'd like to see something as clear as possible. The libertarian and socialist elements reinforce each other: maximum individual liberty dissolves economic, as well as political, hierarchies; removing economic privilege dissolves political, as well as economic, hierarchies, and maximizes individual liberty. And "anti-capitalist" is extremely hard to define. Jacob Haller 01:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So is libertarian socialism =) What if we replace "anti-capitalist" with "worker oriented", or "labor oriented" for socialism? Mixing that with your valid concern might produce something like, "The philosophy of libertarian socialism is explicated in the symbiotic relationship between libertarian and socialist impulses. Libertarian desire for maximum individual liberty dissolves economic and political hierarchy; leading to a worker-oriented socialism. Conversely, socialist desire for worker control guards against the development of economic and political hierarchy; opening a space for libertarian relationships."
My worry would be that the more this passage is fleshed out the more it will scream for a source, and it would probably require more than one. Any thoughts on a book that expresses something like you have mentioned? Etcetc 02:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Malatesta discusses different anarchist proposals in a reply to "adamas":[1]

In the anarchist milieu, communism, individualism, collectivism, mutualism and all the intermediate and eclectic programmes are simply the ways considered best for achieving freedom and solidarity in economic life; the ways believed to correspond more closely with justice and freedom for the distribution of the means of production and the products of labour among men.

Bookchin describes LS as a synonym of Social A (excluding Individualist A as well as non-A) in "Whither Anarchism?":[2]

At one extreme of anarchism is a liberal ideology that focuses overwhelmingly on the abstract individual (often drawing on bourgeois ideologies), supports personal autonomy, and advances a negative rather than a substantive concept of liberty. This anarchism celebrates the notion of liberty from rather than a fleshed-out concept of freedom for. At the other end of the anarchist spectrum is a revolutionary libertarian socialism that seeks to create a free society, in which humanity as a whole--and hence the individual as well--enjoys the advantages of free political and economic institutions.

and that

Supporters of the socialistic tendencies in anarchism, which I have called social anarchism, never denied the importance of gaining individual freedom and personal autonomy. What they consistently argued, however, was that individual freedom will remain chimerical unless sweeping revolutionary changes are made that provide the social foundations for rounded and ethically committed individuals. As social anarchism has argued, the truly free individual is at once an active agent in and the embodiment of a truly free society.

Tucker in SSA never uses the two-word phrase; moreover he excludes Kropotkin and many anarcho-communists from anarchism. (I'm not sure what Tucker thought of Malatesta). Jacob Haller 03:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
A 1995 statement by the (Swedish) SAC states:[3]

The conventionally accepted division between the different socialist tendencies is if they are revolutionary or reformist. Without doubt the syndicalists place themselves on the revolutionary side, (naturally reforms are not rejected as such). But we see another division which is just as important; that between authoritarian (revolutionary or reformistic) and libertarian socialists. The former believing that it is the states responsibility for society's administration either through a proletarian dictatorship or by elected representatives. Often the concept of libertarian socialism is used as being synonymous with syndicalism for example George Woodcocks (sic) description of "the very nature of the libertarian attitude - its rejection of dogma, its deliberate avoidance of rigidly systematic theory and, above all, its stress on extreme freedom of choice and on the primacy of the individual judgement". But a libertarian socialism can be regarded in many different ways - as anarchism, or as libertarian communism according to Kropotkin's thoughts. What is specific for syndicalism is the view on workers unions as a means both for revolution and the administration of production. Syndicalism is therefore a libertarian socialism but also something more. Notwithstanding that nowadays syndicalism is not dominant within the workers movement in any country it is in our opinion indispensable: it is through the syndicalist organisations that the visions of true emancipation is kept alive. The defeat of capitalism demands class consciousness and the capability to fight, but to build up a free society the individuals personal sense of responsibility is more important. Only syndicalism unites both these elements.

Guerin's "Libertarian Marxism" goes beyond the purely anarchist topics above. [4]
Faatz's "Towards a Libertarian Socialism" states:[5]

Refreshingly enough, in this age of relentless analysis and little prescription, Bookchin goes on to offer a libertarian left *program* around which such a rational, humanistic, pluralistic socialist project could--and might--cohere. Bookchin emphasizes four points as central to such a program: confederal forms (a commune of communes, as he puts it at another point); opposition to statism, class oppression, and hierarchical forms of social organization; a belief in direct democracy; and what I can only delightedly call "the vision thing," i.e., a picture, however fuzzy, of what a libertarian society might look like. He then goes on to insist that: The most imporant issue that left-libertarianism--libertarian socialism no less than anarchism--faces today is: What will it *do* with these four powerful tenets? How will we give them social *form* and *content*? In what *ways* and by what *means* will we render them relevant to our time and bring them to the service of an organized popular movement for empowerment and freedom?

Note that he uses libertarian socialist and libertarian left interchangibly.Jacob Haller 04:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear to me, then, that we need a passage indicating the widely varied use of the term, giving some very brief examples, and quoting several if not all of the sources you've mentioned. Many of these definitions are contradictory, we can't include them all under on vague umbrella without ignoring some, so why not toss out any general definition and indicate the presence of several? Etcetc 17:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

We've attempted something along those lines in the mutualism article, with some success. The trick is to avoid OR categorization or synthesis, while getting enough detail represented to alert readers to the variations. Libertatia 18:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't have time to weigh on now, but this is a useful source, attempting to define libertarianism, socialism and libertarian socialism, in quite an academic way: 'Mclaverty, Peter , 'Socialism and libertarianism', Journal of Political Ideologies, 10:2, 185 - 198 DOI: 10.1080/13569310500097349 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13569310500097349 BobFromBrockley 17:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Council communism and autonomist marxism

I can't seem to find any source for these as being a form of, rather than simply related to, libertarian socialism. I know of heard of council communism in particular referanced in discussions and forums, but I can't seem to find it in the literature. If someone does find a referance please pop them back into the article, other than those two all the ideologies are now cited. Etcetc 04:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I would see autonomism as libertarian communism, but not libertarian socialism, as many autonomists have written critiques of socialism. BobFromBrockley 17:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Libertarian Socialist neo-nazis

In the 1990s a guy named William White operating out of Maryland began publishing "Libertarian Socialist News" for many years. His brand of Libertarian Socialism is in many ways in line with the ideas of the various groups in this article. The twist of course is that this group is also extremely racist, blaming the continuation of capitalism and the state on the Jews. There is also lots of hate against non-white Americans and immigrants. For many years, they operated on libertariansocialist.com and www.overthrow.com (www.archive.org should have lots of snapshots). They also have a strong anti-war (other than revolutionary war of course) and environmentalist platform. They probably deserve some mention in this article (and any article on "kooks" and "nutcases" Wikipedia may also have) even though I suspect most other self-described libertarian socialists would probably loudly disown this group. If nothing else, it probably ought to be mentioned for purposes of distinguishing between their self-description as libertarian socialists and the mainstream(s) of L.S. ideas. In recent years the group has renamed itself the "Libertarian National Socialist Green Party" at www.nazi.org but its still essentially the same group with the same leader. Murple 17:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Old Kaiser Bill is hardly a notable figure in libertarian socialist circles, and the LSN site was also a pretty clearly non-notable personal website/mailing list/source of spam. The UAP and his nominally "anarchist" activities are mentioned on the article about him. Maybe he's a significant figure in the history of the NSM, but certainly not in that of libertarian socialism, and nobody who had even a Wikipedia intro to the subject would be confused by the content of the LSN stuff. Libertatia 21:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it was never demonstrated that White's political parties were anything other than one person shows with no audience. If he had gained more notoriety perhaps he would be worth mentioning, but I don't think he ever made much of an impact outside of annoying people on mailing-lists. Etcetc 03:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting. Are these the same kind of libertarian socialists like Proudhon? That would make good sense because if you look at the philosophy of the Nazis and Proudhon they are very similar. They are both opposed to finance capitalism, that is recieving profit or interest from investements. The Nazi 25-point platform called for "the abolition of all incomes unearned by work," "profit-sharing in large enterprises," etc. They were both anti-semites. Proudhon said "The Jew is the enemy of the human race. This race must be sent back to Asia, or exterminated." They both supported land reform, opposing absentee ownership of land expanses. They both were concerned with labor exploitation, which to them meant people profiting off the labor of others without working. Both had a kind of socialism that was not the communist kind as socialism is usually understood. Adolph Hitler said "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance." Hitler also said "Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not." Proudhon also supported private property except for absentee ownership of land, just as the Nazis. But both were anti-profit. They were both for a 'third way' that as neither capitalism nor communism. Proudhon socialists and the Nazis were really kindred spirits. There is a good article called "Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: Harbinger of Fascism" that some here may want to read. If Proudhonist economic views are socialim then Nazism must be as well. Again I'm not familiar with Neo-Nazism so I don't know if the are also supporters of this "third way."

BS. Almost any two randomly-selected political philosophies would be far more similar than libertarian socialism and Nazism. Nazism was about suppressing free association, to allow maximum profit for the favored capitalists. Mutualism is about expanding free association, allowing workers to pool their resources, and compete against capitalists. (read Proudhon's actual writings on commerce). Unfortunately, Proudhon was a creature of his time; however, most anarchists since Proudhon have actively opposed nationalism, race-hatred, ethnic-hatred, etc. Jacob Haller 20:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Proudhon influenced a range of social and political movements right across the spectrum, some of which he opposed in his lifetime (e.g. republican federalism), and others which he almost certainly would have opposed had he lived to see them (e.g. fascism). His writings did have some impact on fascist ideas, especially via Georges Sorel and the right wing of syndicalism. This connection is already noted in the article on Proudhon. But calling libertarian socialists "kindred spirits" of the Nazis is completely unsupported. Also, the claim that libertarian socialism and Nazism support the same system, because they each support systems that are different from pure capitalism and pure communism, is both illogical and unsupported by the evidence. -Steve
"Proudhon was a creature of his time" he says. I love how people make excuses for anti-semetism. Anti-semetism is alive and well today just as it was back then. He wasn't a creature of his time. He chose to be an anti-semite. He was an anti-semite and proto-fascist. Plenty of people were not anti-semites in that time. There is no excuse.


Proudhon has been vastly overrated and is a proto-libertarian socialist thinker. He provided some germs, especially in terms of economic institutions, of what libertarian socialist institutions might aspire to. Libertarian socialism itself is a modern philosophy and movement that opposes all forms of domination- including notably institutional racism. BernardL 01:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't feed the sock-puppets. Libertatia 03:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page is not a forum

Most of the previous discussion on "libertarian national socialism" should be deleted altogether as it has nothing whatsoever to do with improving this article. The talk page is not a forum for the general discussion of libertarian socialism and/or related topics. The specific purpose of the talk page is for discussion of the article. All the rest is trollspam, and should be treated as such. ---Cathal 15:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source?

In my attempt to source this article I found the following statement "Others, however, have advanced strong critiques of federated systems, and these federations have rarely been carried out in practice." I do vaguely recall hearing a lot of these criticisms years ago, primarily from post-leftists and a few primitivists. However, I'm not sure they are routinely considered libertarian socialists, and anyhow I don't know where to look for this criticism. Could someone provide us with a source? If it comes from libertarian socialists we can put it back in the main text, otherwise we might want to move it to the criticism section. Etcetc 21:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Council Communism

A couple weeks ago I asked for a source concerning council communism as a form of libertarian socialism. I still can't find any such source myself, though I suspect one does exist somewhere. I'm finding it difficult to come up with sources for the section on council communism, and the wiki page on council communism is also bereft of sources. I'm tempted to remove the section and place it on the discussion page until it can be properly sourced, but before I do that I'd like to wait another week or so and see if anyone can come up with some decent sources for that material. Any takers? Etcetc 03:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky, in Chomsky on Democracy and Education, writes, "May 1968 in France of course accelerated the growing interest in council communism and similar ideas, other forms of libertarian socialism, in France..." (p. 133). Libertatia 16:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Great, I can use that for a source earlier in the article and put council communism back in. Will still need more sources for the section on council communism though, if you can find those as well. Etcetc 22:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Libertarian socialism and anarchism again

I have removed a number of those listed as prominent libertarian socialists, as they did not or do not describe themselves as such and in many cases rejected that description: Chumbawumba, Crass, Alexander Berkman, Albert Meltzer. These may all be on the "left" side of anarchism, but they see/saw "socialism" as meaning state socialism, and thus it is unfair to call them prominent libertarian socialists. Even if one argued they are "really" libertarian socialists, that is not what they are notable as, so they should not be on the list. BobFromBrockley 17:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Etcetc 07:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I took out "individualist anarchism" from the introduction. It said some forms of individualist anarchism are commonly described as libertarian socialism. I checked the source and it didn't say it was commonly described that way. It gives the name of one guy who is "arguing" that it was libertarian socialism. But also that conflicts with the definition in this article which says that libertarian socialists want to abolish private property. Individualist anarchists are in support of private property. Illegal editor 01:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Most individualist anarchists have historically held positions close to Proudhon's, and most libertarian socialists have historically interpreted Proudhon's position as abolishing, not defending private property, effectively abolishing property as a power to defend possession as a freedom. Jacob Haller 12:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
How you can be serious? Individualist anarchists believe the individuals should own the fruits of his labor as private property. Find one instance of an individualist anarchists saying he wants to abolish private property. Benjamin Tucker said "Anarchism is a word without meaning, unless it includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free market - that is, private property." Are you going to deny Murray Rothbard supports private property of the product of labor too? Illegal editor 16:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Murray Rothbard is not most individualist anarchists through history. Mutualism emerged 1820-1850; Ancapism emerged 1960-1970. So for the first 3/4 of the history of individualist anarchism, mutualism existed, and ancapism did not.
Most mutualists have considered occupancy and use the measures of ownership of land, opposed patents, opposed monopolies, etc. i.e. they oppose non-possessive property to protect possessive property. (Possessive) property is freedom, (non-possessive) property is theft (of possessive property). A great deal of mutualist and other anarchist literature discusses the distinction. Proudhon wrote on the subject, many other mutualists have written on the subject and defended Proudhon's views on the subject.
For mutualists, as for most other anarchists in general, the abolition of property does not mean the abolition of personal (or small group) possession, it means the defense of possession (possessive property) from property (non-possessive property).
If your objection excludes mutualism from libertarian socialism, it excludes everything else from libertarian socialist too. Jacob Haller 02:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about mutualism. I'm talking about individualist anarchism. Mutualism is somewhere in between individualist anarchism and social anarchism. From the anarchism article, and sourced: "Unlike the American individualist anarchists, Proudhon emphasises associations amongst producers;[29] thus, some see mutualism as being situated somewhere between individualism and collectivism.[30]" I see you're just talking about land. How about everything else that can be private property? Even if most individualist anarchists believed all products of labor, except for land which would be modified private property, is private property, then that is hardly wanting to abolish private property. Individualist anarchists are staunchly in favor of private property. Lysander Spooner suggested that everyone own their own business. How would that be compatible with abolishing private property. If you abolish private property, then individuals do not own their own businesses. Businesses, if you can call them that, would be held in common. Illegal editor 03:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, the 'some forms of individualist anarchism' refered to individualist mutualism and its closest parallels. I see that mutualism is still up there. Jacob Haller 05:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Mutualism is still there, yes. Mutualism is dubious too though since it doesn't want to abolish private property except in land. It certainly doesn't accord with the sourced definition in the foonotes which says "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." Mutualists aren't for community of land and tools. There may be sources for mutualism being libertarian socialism though. It may just be the case that there has to be a contradiction in the article, since libertarian socialism is not defined to include mutualism. Illegal editor 05:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source

Source which is used for listing individualist anarchism as a political philosophy commonly described as libertarian socialist (Porton, Richard 'Film and the Anarchist Imagination' Verso (1999) p.38) says the following: "The film's often troublesome reluctance to offend is particularly noticeable in Sucher and Fischler's brief interview with Mildred Loomis, a proponent of agrarian homesteading who professes admiration for Benjamin Tucker's brand of nineteenth-century American anarchism. William Reichert attempts to establish parallels between Tucker's individualist anarchism and Bakunin and Kropotkin's more militant creeds by arguing that they were all united by a belief in libertarian socialism that eschewed the excesses of state socialism. Yet when Loomis is asked by the filmmakers if she has any interest in anarchism, in addition to reviling the clichés of anarchist 'bomb-throwing,' she derides 'collectivism', which she differentiates from indigenous American 'do-it-yourself' anarchism." First, this source talks about "Tucker's individualist anarchism", not individualist anarchism in general. Second, the source doesn't even claim that Tucker's individualist anarchism is commonly decribed libertarian socialism. For now, until somebody else also comments on this, I will leave the reference in introduction but change "individualist anarchism" to "some forms of individualist anarchism". -- Vision Thing -- 12:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This source was added by Etcetc. Since this isn't the first time I have found his misinterpretation of the source, and he recently added the whole bunch of sources to this article, I will add citecheck tag. -- Vision Thing -- 12:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of libertarian socialists

I know this isn't the first time I've raised this, hope I don;t seem obsessive, but a bunch of anarchists have (re)appeared in the list, who can not be called libertarian socialists in any but a contentious way, and therefore should not be in such a list. I am removing some where I am sure they have rejected the designation socialist and am putting a fact tag next to those I am doubtful about. If thinkers do not call themslves libertarian socialist, and certainly if they reject this designation, it is not right to include them in such a list. They can be mentioned in the article, with some context given, if that's important. BobFromBrockley 14:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Fact tags removed (by anon editor) from Clifford Harper, Errico Malatesta, Vernon Richards and George Woodcock. Justification: "all well known anarchists and so libertarian socialists". Have these people ever called themselves libertarian socialists? Have they been authoratitely described as such? Are all anarchists to be called libertarian socialists? BobFromBrockley 15:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
All genuine anarchists are libertarian socialists. While libertarian socialist does not exactly map to anarchist, anarchism is one of the schools of libertarian socialism. For example, Malatesta repeated called himself a socialist as well as a libertarian communist. I'm surprised I have to mention this -- it is almost like someone asking for references which prove the sky is blue... BlackFlag —Preceding comment was added at 09:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
"Genuine" is a rather specious term. What about anarchoprimitivism, post-left anarchism, and anarchocapitalism? None of these fits into Lib-Soc neatly. Granted, many intellectuals use the term anarchism and Lib-Soc interchangeably, especially anarchosyndicalists like Chomsky. But while mentioning that fact, it is important to tell the reader that not all anarchists use the term that way. I side with you, but others don't. Hence the need for NPOV.72.78.8.51 (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] vs. Libertarianism

Restored the primary statement, viz. that one reflected, for example, in current practice in the Libertarianism portion of mainspace wrt. to the subject. Lycurgus 08:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Historically, the term "libertarian" has very commonly been used to refer to libertarian anti-capitalist movements, and this is how it used today in Europe and most of the world. The "mainstream" you are talking about is a recent and very North American definition.BobFromBrockley 14:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structure

Am I alone in thinking the structure of this article is kind of odd? For example, criticisms section is usually a last section in wikipedia articles; here it is penultimate. There is a lot of repitition between the sections, e.g. on the question of whether libertarian socialism is an oxymoron or not, which appears in intro, overview and political roots sections. The sub-section on violence seems to me placed too high - does not belong in "Overview". And ordering of "Notable tendencies" is a bit arbitrary - would perhaps be better chronological, i.e. moving Mutualism up? Plus the structure leaves no space for important figures who don't belong in one or another of the "Notable tendencies", e.g. William Morris, Herbert Marcuse, GDH Cole. I think I am going to start a new sub-section, on the New Left, in the Notable tendencies section, and am thinking about renaming the "Political Mainstream" section something like "Libertarian socialism in the British labour movement" to enable it to deal with important libertarian currents like the Socialist League, the New Unionism, Guild socialism, etc. What do people think? BobFromBrockley 15:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think many of your points are valid. So go ahead and be bold, although I may not agree with you at some point, and then we will have to work something out, sensibly. BernardL 00:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Libertarian socialism" is not a true form of Libertarianism@

Calling it such, is a violation of WP:NPOV, thus the NPOV tag stays until this article is moved to a neutral title that doesn't implicate it as a part of mainstream Libertarianism--—(Kepin)RING THE LIBERTY BELL 17:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That, hombre, is entirely your POV. Unless you can provide authoritative sources to that effect, there is no reason why the article should reflect these sentiments. Skomorokh incite 18:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
As is explained in the overview section, libertarian socialist organizations go quite far back, while their ideological roots go back even further. Reading material from the Libertarian International circa 1872 would lead many reasonable persons to conclude the obverse of user:Kepin's uninformed assertion - namely that it is the modern form of libertarian capitalism that contradicts essential libertarian principles, and is thus not a true libertarianism. But for the purposes of wikipedia this is neither here nor there. I'm not suggesting adding a similar pov tag on the "libertarianism" page, rather suggesting that the inclusion of such a tag here, for the reasons given, was a particularly specious and ignorant action.BernardL 19:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Completely support BernardL. The libertarianism page contains a very narrow, US-centric definition of libertarianism, which does not reflect the rich history of non-capitalist libertarianism(s), especially in Europe. BobFromBrockley 11:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:Naming conflict#Dealing with self-identifying terms. Eleland 11:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag, which would normally require some more discussion, but in this case the rationale was so counterfactual and counter to policy, and the user so obviously a blind partisan if not an outright Internet troll, that I think it's safe. Eleland 12:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticisms of libertarian socialism

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticisms of libertarian socialism. Thanks. • Lawrence Cohen 15:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Was Thomas Jefferson libertarian socialist?

He often wrote about the dangers of putting too much power (read: money) in the hands of business. He argued against the establishment of a Central Bank, saying that the means of production should remain with farmers and individual businessmen, not large corporate entities. i.e. He was pro-freedom (libertarian) and anti-capitalist. - Theaveng (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say he's more of a proto-leftist classic liberal. To call him a libertarian socialist would be a considerable anachronism. Nevertheless, libertarian socialism is itself a descendant of classic liberal philosophy, so he could potentially be considered one of the influences for early LibSoc thinkers. I'd have to do more research to make any more definitive of a conclusion, though. Sarcastic Avenger (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Well "classic liberals" usually support a free market without any restraints on corporations (i.e. the companies can abuse the workers; and the gov't should do nothing to stop it; i.e. no pro-labor laws). Jefferson did not support a free market, but instead supported measures that would prevent the formation of corporations. He and the Democrats that followed him discontinued the central U.S. Bank, because Jefferson felt the Bank only served to concentrate money/power in a few wealthy persons, and was damaging to his goal of letting the common man rule his own life, rather than submit like "serfs" to rule by the rich. Thus he was staunchly anti-capitalist (afraid of too much money/power in a few large corporations)... that fits with how Libertarian-Socialist members think. - Theaveng (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Jefferson, like Thomas Paine, was a classical liberal with some egalitarian ideas. Benjamin Tucker, I think, described anarchism as Jeffersonian democracy taken to its logical conclusion. But it would not be correct to describe them as libertarian socialists. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 03:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be very difficult indeed to describe Jefferson as any kind of socialist, even in the rather vague, early 19th century, pre-Marx sense of the word. Many libertarians (say, of the Agorist variety) would argue that Jefferson did support a free market (I would agree) in the true sense of a free market, i.e., controlled neither by the meddling government nor manipulated by and for the benefit of larger corporations and the super wealthy. Neither libertarian nor socialist were terms in circulation in Jefferson's day, but a look at his philosophy would tend to put him on the libertarian side of things, at least generally speaking. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 05:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
He definitely did support a free market, but that is not necessarily anti-socialist, and when considering libertarian socialism is often quite relevant (see Mutualism (economic theory), individualist anarchism. While his ideas did probably influence certain libertarian socialists, especially in the individualist tradition, classifying him as a libertarian socialist (or anarchist) is anachronistic, and prior discussion on the old list of anarchists talkpage failed to find a citation. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 11:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
In response to anarchism, Jefferson said we would have no government at all, if it were possible, but without government certain persons would be attacking other persons. It therefore becomes necessary to install a government to protect each person's rights. (Basically a repeat of the Declaration's opening sentences.) - Theaveng (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

He was a slave owner; that by definition excludes him from being a libertarian or a socialist. Grant | Talk 01:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Thomas?

Mark Thomas has appeared in list of prominent lib socs. Is he a libertarian socialist? I know he is a socialist, but has he ever described himself as a libertarian socialist? (I'm not saying he's not, but want to be convinced.)

I really think we need to limit the list to people who have specifically described themselves, or been described by strongly reliable sources, as "libertarian socialist". We shouldn't be comparing their views to the definition of libertarian socialism and trying to make the call on our own, because that's original research by synthesis. <eleland/talkedits> 17:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Question was me, obviously forgot to sign. Will remove Mark Thomas as OR. BobFromBrockley 13:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Mark Thomas calls himself a "libertarian anarchist"... ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 05:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On not responding to trollish comments

I would like to propose a rule that these kinds of comments simply be removed on sight. I don't know whether it's conscious trolling, or just failure to understand that the word "libertarian" has not always been associated with laissez-faire capitalism (and still isn't, in much of the world,) but it's wasting everybody's time. <eleland/talkedits> 20:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. The less time that we waste responding to these absurd trollish comments, the more time we can spend actually improving these articles. I generally make a point of removing most POV-pushing comments that have naught to do with article improvement. These talk pages are not message boards. Besides, more often than not, when one responds to these trolls, it only encourages them. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 21:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and the counter-responses are also annoying and inspire "corrections". --Lquilter (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for reference in anti-capitalism section

Hi RepublicanJacobite. With your most recent edit you put a fact tag at the end of a paragraph in the anti-capitalism section after the sentences: "A key difference between libertarian socialism and right-wing libertarianism is that advocates of the former generally believe that one's degree of freedom is affected by one's economic and social status, whereas advocates of the latter believe that freedom is essentially freedom of choice, or freedom for self-realization[22]. This is sometimes characterized as a desire to maximize "free creativity" in a society in preference to "free enterprise"[citation needed]."

The source is C.P. Otero writing the editor's introduction (explicating Chomsky's main themes) to Noam Chomsky's book Radical Priorities. (The section of the introduction is called libertarianism vs. liberalism) :
"The most fundamental condition that the libertarian vision places on any future society is not the condition of freedom "to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another," making a profit in the process, but the condition of freedom for self-realization. Thus the first genuine choice we have to confront is the choice between "free creativity" and "free enterprise." For a libertarian, a decent society should maximize the possibilities for "free creativity" to be realized; a "free enterprise" system has very little to do with anything we know about nature or natural law, and even less with Marx's "realm of freedom." It can only live in symbiosis with the archaic structure called the State, which is why the libertarian is an adversary of State power. (see more p.42)" (Otero, C.P. in Chomsky, Noam Radical Priorities, Black Rose Books,1981, 30-31)BernardL (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'd like to request assistance in editing the Libertarian page.

Could several people assist me in editing the Libertarian page to include the history of the term instead of the current biased version? Thanks q (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)