Talk:Libertarian socialism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

---

Overview

The basic philosophy of libertarian socialism is summed up in the name: adherents believe that management of the common good (socialism) is necessary, but that this should be done in a manner that maximizes individual liberty and minimizes concentration of power or authority (libertarianism).

Libertarian critiques are based on principles of decentralization of power and authority. Libertarian socialists advocate freedom while denying the legitimacy of private property, since private property, in the form of capital, leads to the exploitation of others with less economic means and thus infringes on the exploited class's individual freedoms.

I chopped this down a little. I don't think that anything was lost. It now reads:

The basic philosophy of libertarian socialism is summed up in the name: management of the common good (socialism) in a manner that maximizes individual liberty and minimizes concentration of power or authority (libertarianism). Libertarian socialism denies the legitimacy of private property, since private property, in the form of capital, leads to the exploitation of others with less economic means and thus infringes on the exploited class's individual freedoms.'

First paragraph was inefficient. Second paragraph - first sentence (decentralize power and authority) and fist part of second sentence (liberty) were redundant as this had just been said and individual freedoms is again referred to at end of second sentence.

I think the last sentence sounds needlessly POV. I will come back for that sometime. --Evan 13:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to give more emphasis in the section that actually describes the difference between libertarian socialism and right-wing libertarianism. Specificially, I've tried to explain more clearly that there is a tradeoff between economic freedoms of individuals in capitalist systems, and the collective freedom of everyone in society; that a world where one person has all the wealth and 99 have none is less free overall than one where everyone has some of the wealth. Libertarian socialism is "libertarian" in that it desires to maximize freedom, and "socialist" in that it desires to maximize the freedom of everyone in society, not that of individuals considered in isolation. Can the various trolls please try to get that through their thick skulls? Metamatic 19:36, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

How is it true that "a world where one person has all the wealth and 99 have none is less free overall than one where everyone has some of the wealth"? In particular, what is meant by the term free in this claim? Is it,

1. The right or ability to do anything one wishes, regardless of how it affects anyone else.
2. The right or ability to do anything one wishes, as long as it does not violate the right or ability of anyone else to do anything he wishes.
3. Something else (please specify).

Thanks. --Serge 01:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism or socialist libertarianism?

Clearly there is much controversy generated by the name "Libertarian socialism". In a large part the problem is caused by the inverted meaning of liberal and libertarian in the US. In the US, the name is completely confusing, because libertarian and socialist have nearly completely opposite meanings. If you don't understand this, then you should ponder the contents of a page called "Liberal socialism". In the US, it would be completely obvious and non-controversial. Most other places, "Liberal socialism" is a contradiction in terms. IMHO, this article is non-encyclopaedic if it doesn't start off by explaining this issue. RussNelson 05:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Societal Harmony?

Some libertarian socialists say individual liberty and societal harmony are necessarily antagonistic, and libertarian philosophy must balance the two. Others feel that the two are symbiotic, and that the liberty of the individual guarantees the harmony of the society and vice-versa.

American Heritage defines harmony: "1. Agreement in feeling or opinion; accord: live in harmony."

I don't understand the necessity of this passage. It is very vague (e.g., what does "societal harmony" mean to the reader?). Not "encyclopedic." I have removed. If someone wants to replace it with something please use more concrete terms and provide references for "some" and "others." --Evan 12:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Untenable Dichotomy

Adherents believe there is little difference between threat of physical violence as a means of coercion and coercion using political or economic power. Thus the libertarian socialist argues that the capitalist distinction between economic coercion, which they allow by the centralized accumulation of productive property and wealth, and physical coercion is an untenable dichotomy. Further, libertarian socialists argue that even under such a dichotomy, physical coercion is still endorsed by capitalists in the form of a series of physically coercive institutions that uphold property privilege. Libertarian socialists believe that freedom can only exist in a society that allows for equal bargaining power.

What is the point of this passage? What is the relevance? Who is stressing the dichotomy? Who is denying it? Please rewrite and provide reference before reverting.

featured article???

This is NOT featured article material!, Whats the deal? Sam Spade 23:02, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Your objection (which seems to be based on the usage of the word Libertarian) seems to be unfounded to me. The phrase "Libertarian Socialism" predates the modern usage of the word "Libertarian" to denote anti-government capitalistic views. If anything, Liberatarian is the usurper, not Libertarian Socialism. ShaneKing 03:56, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'd be impressed to see some documentation of that. Anyways, it doesn't change what "libertarianism" means, or the fact that the word makes no sense when used in regards to this ...political philosophy? I am disputing the factual accuracy, since the title of the page is an oxymoron. Sam Spade 00:54, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, here's a page that documents the times when Libertarian has been used (http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libsoc.html ). Yes, it's obviously POV, but I think it has the facts straight (it provides references, so you can check them if you like). As for being an oxymoron, libertarian, as defined in m-w, is:

• an advocate of the doctrine of free will
• a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action

Given that anarchist/libertarian socialist theory is that a person can only exercise their free will in the absense of coercion from either the state or the corporation, it's obvious why they use the term.

If you wish to argue that this view is POV, I don't think you have a leg to stand on, because capital L Libertarianism relies on a similar POV stance that free will can only be exercised in the presence of strong property rights.

Besides, Libertarians have taken anarchism which was traditionally understood as an anti-capitalist theory and created anarcho-capitalism, so even if you don't accept the term "libertarian socialism" predating the Libertarian movement, it still deserves an article as a valid term that's in practical usage (5,810 google hits when searching for the phrase "libertarian socialism" and 8,440 for "libertarian socialist") ShaneKing 01:05, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps he assumes socialism is inherently authoritarian ala the soviet union?

Sam Spade Should Recuse Himself

Under no circumstances should "Sam Spade" and people like him have sway here with this entry. He has made it clear, repeatedly, that he utterly opposes the very idea of libertarian socialism, and he has no right to determine what libertarian socialism means, and should not have change this from being a featured topic... of COURSE it is featured topic material. Libertarian Socialism is a very important idea that has been in the "background" of politics for years and is making a comeback. People who think that the word "libertarian" only belongs to capitalists know better than to pretend the word only has their personal meaning... they are arguing it is their word (and cannot mean socialism) based on their own subjective desires and predjudices and social class bias. This is like having the Fox run the Hen House. "Sam Spade" should recuse himself, or be blocked from using this forum... it makes no sense to have someone who wishes the destruction of an idea to have influence in it's definition. Such people already have the "Libertarian Party" section, and you can put across your pro-private property ideas there.

When pro-capitalists started using the word "libertarian" in the 1950s-1970s, surely it was said to be an oxymoron by everyone else in the world, but did that stop them? No. They had their chance to re-define the word, and for the most part their party is a joke, with no more chance of obtaining the presidency than the Green Party.

I also object to the way every week some new paragraph is added to the definition of Libertarian Socialism that is another consession to "anarcho capitalists" and Libertarian Party people. We do not need anyone to tell us that "libertarian" is a word used by some other people in the past, or that someone out there doesn't believe private property is bad. We don't need these disclaimers. People can look elsewhere for themselves if they want to research other perspectives. The world and history and culture is not about constructing safe, friendly "Categories"... think about it: the word "Republican" in spain means something different than "Republican" in the USA.. and the word meant something else in the USA when Lincoln was president. History writes the encyclopedia.. the encyclopedia does not write history. Libertarian socialists exist and they organize and they act. The term exists even if it means mostly the same thing as anarchism. The term exists even if the word "libertarian" has been used by some pro-bussiness politians and science fiction writers for a few decades. It exists in the context of what it means to some peopel on some part of the world and how it is used and under which there is a body of history and writing and actions. So I say now that the term shoudl and must be left alone and does not "threaten" anything, because human beings can figure things out for themselves.

But like I said, we dont need disclaimers and extra information put in or misleading terms substituted for the real ones...

Here are three examples: a) The opposition to private property is not a "moral" opposition... morality implies an external observer who decides good and bad. The opposition to private property by libertarian socialists is rather an ethical opposition... it is ethical because it is based on real-world, here-and-now principles, and the rational self-interest of working class individuals.

b) It also does not matter if someone thinks private property being separate from personal possessions is some sort of disputable issue... what matters is that it is the position libertarian socialists hold, and other perspectives may be spelled out in other parts of the encyclopedia. We are not stupid.

c) Furthermore, I am apalled that so few philosophical individualists (like Max Stirner, Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner) are mentioned in the entry, and that individualism - individual liberty - so important to the idea of libertarian socialism, is not of central focus. Libertarian socialism is individualism for workers (whereas individualism based on private peroperty is individualism for capitalists). The clear difference between libertarian socialism and Marxist socialism is the emphasis libertarian socialists put on the primary importance of establishing as much liberty as practical and possible, as opposed to externally forced equality schemes which Marxist-Leninists are so well known for, and which always fail.

But I digress: It seems to me that these people (Sam Spade, etc.) must realize that capitalism can't stand on it's own merits, and it is perhaps not an idea based on freedom after all, because when people with another idea of freedom come along with their message put accross clearly and directly, perhaps capitalism does not stand up to it? If people like Sam Spade really believe his capitalist "libertarianism" is superior, then let it stand in comparison to libertarian socialism based on it's own defined merits, and let him try to be an honest businessman, and have him leave "libertarian socialism" be - people will then vote with their feet and decide what is better, and those of us who are libertarian socialists will find out for ourselves if libertarian socialism can work by ourselves - we do not need inserted warnings and disclaimers and all this misleading text put into the definition of our own term.

If people like Sam Spade will not leave be... if the definition of libertarian socialism cannot be made exclusively by those who understand the idea and care to even have it appear in Wikipedia, then I strongly suggest the entry be completely removed from the on-line encyclopedia, and a note left stating that Wikipedia is biased toward people like Spade, and should be regarded as their personal institution under their exlusive control.

I was the one who originally did extensive research and wrote the document on http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libsoc.html years ago, and I am appalled that an Encyclopedia entry would be decided by or influenced by people who have no interest in that entries existance and who turn it into a pathetic shadow, a ghost - a skeletal corpse of it's true self. This is NOT the way to run an encyclopedia. This is most certainly un-ethical behavior, and I can't believe this discussion is even going on. If capitalism is so pathetically weak that one encyclopedia entry, left unmolested, is actually a threat (no matter what it might say)... well, then the capitalists better either pack up and call it quits, or admit that their ideas and their system can only be maintained by lies, fraud and the threat of force and coercion, and that they need to assume control over everything, always and forever - even voluntary things and institutions.

This entry should be re-written with the concessions to libertarian socialism's detractors taken back out, and placed back as a featured article... otherwise it should be completely removed from Wikipedia as this whole venture is hopeless and doomed to be a failure - a misleading, bureacratic mess, and weak-willed journalism with no integrity.

People similar to "Sam Spade" did their best to marginalize or eliminate the similar ( see http://dmoz.org/Society/Politics/Socialism/Libertarian_Socialism/ ) section of the voluntary dmoz.org open directory web project (using the same arguments and the same tactics and siezing control of a vuluntary forum that was intended to be unbiased and authoritive), and they should not be allowed to do it here unless we all accept that Sam Spade (and anyone like him) is some kind of king or authority who has control over how we should think and what we should do. (User: "Radical Mallard" | Fri Nov 19 22:15:43 EST 2004)

With regard to content in the article, if you feel like you have information to contribute w/r/t the individualist tradition, please do so! This is a free encyclopedia, after all.

And while I don't think Sam's objections are proper, the disclaimers are nothing but helpful. A large part of our audience is American, and to them, Libertarianism has a very specific definition that is quite different from libertarian socialism. It makes things clearer. taion 04:26, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rename/redirect the article?

I think it would be an acceptable redirect. But as is, it is inherently misinformative. How would people surrender their personal property rights w/o state coercian? And besides, surrendering ones freedom is in opposition to liberty. Sam Spade 04:25, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's a complicated issue.

Most, if not all, libertarian socialists would agree that personal property is different from commercial property. While personal property is allowed under most libertarian socialist theories (eg you're allowed to have your own house), the usage of land or property for a private commercial purpose is not. Ownership is collective of such things, not by single individuals or a government. However, some would say that there is no ownership, as such things can not be owned (the land belongs to all, etc). There's a diversity of views on the details.

As to how people would surrender ownership of the means of production, again, it varies. Some believe there would be a revolution, whereby the working class rise up and sieze them for everyone. Others believe that through education people will voluntarily give them up. Still others believe that property by its very nature is theft, and hence they were never validly owned by anyone in the first place.

As to surrendering freedom, there are many kinds of freedom. Libertarian Socialists generally agree, for example, that the freedom to own private property impinges on others rights to use that property. Freedom is rarely (or never) absolute, it's a matter of compromises. Libertarian Socialists and Libertarians just disagree as to where the compromises should be made.

I don't think the article is inherently misinformative. It documents the views of libertarian socialists. If you believe these views to be incorrect, then by all means, edit the article and provide refutation of them. The article needs a section that tells people why critics of libertarian socialism believe it to be incorrect.

And for what it's worth, years ago I'd started using the term "libertarian socialism" before I'd heard of the term from other sources, or even read anything about anarchist theory. I was using it to mean "voluntary and individualist socialism" (in contrtast to soviet communism, for example). So if someone can come up with the term to describe such ideas independently, I don't think it's as outrageously incredible as you claim. ShaneKing 04:42, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There would be no state to enforce property rights, but most importantly, the philosophy is called "Libertarian Socialism" and so Is the article.WilliamJuhl 00:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade's objection is based on his own view that there cannot be such a thing as libertarian socialism. However, there is; it is documented and it exists. If a better title is required (to avoid the confusion with Libertarianism, for example), then anarchist communism is a good candidate. --Sam Francis

I would only support a rename if Libertarianism is renamed (since if the word is this contentious, it violates NPOV to use it in the title in either sense). However, since I don't think that's sensible, it should not be renamed. Especially since, dispite anyone's objections that it's oxymoronic, that is the actual name used in literature about the theory. ShaneKing 00:52, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I second sam's assesment (with some reservations, as I do have other objections, with the oxymoron perhaps being the strongest) and agree with his suggestion. Shanes idea is ludicris, but fortunately there is no way that is going to happen, so I won't bother being disturbed by it. Please keep in mind, this is an encyclopedia not a mouth peice for alternate political philosophies, or POV. Sam Spade 01:48, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And as an encyclopedia, which is aiming to keep a NPOV attitude, it should call a spade a spade sam (if you'll pardon the pun). The theory is called "libertarian socialism". You're welcome to disagreee with the theory. However, that doesn't give you the right to rename the theory because you disagree with the name that its proponents have chosen. To do so is as ridiculous as renaming the article on capitalism "Ruthless exploitation of the working class". Nobody (I hope) would agree to do that, and an article on "libertarian socialism" should be given the same respect. ShaneKing 01:57, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What Shane just said is completely self-evident and sensible. I don't even know why it's an issue. Keep the real name of the theory. Besides, it's the NPOV thing to do. MikeCapone Feb 17, 2004, 02:00 (UTC)

Actually I am not welcome to disagree with the theory. Thats one of the things that this is not the proper place for. I can, and do, object to misinformation, mislabeling, and other sorts of intellectual diservices to our readers. And thats what I am doing here, and now. Sam Spade 03:45, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I meant "welcome to disagree" is the sense that you don't have to agree with the concept the article describes. For example, I don't agree with the contents of the Time Cube article, I think it's complete quackery. But it does describe a theory as it has been put forth. Therefore although I think what the article describes is a complete load of bunk, I also think the article has every right to tell it. As far as diservices go, I'd say deleting an article that accurately outlines a real, existant theory is a diservice. If you feel the article is inacurrate, edit it. If you feel the theory does not actually exist, provide an explaination as to why a google search provides many pages about it. At the moment, you're throwing terms about like "misinformation", "misleading" and "oxymoron" without providing any justification. ShaneKing 03:55, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not saying the article should be deleted. I think it would be best to merge it. Then, a redirect would be acceptable. Where to direct it to is not something I have a strong opinion about. Maybe I should make this more clear on VfD. I'll go do that. Sam Spade 04:16, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Indentation getting too deep, let me start afresh. Particuarly, in regards to the request for a redirect.

My personal view is that libertarian socialism is equivalent to anarchism (ie they're synonyms). However, I qualify this statement on a few points.

• I don't consider myself to be an expert in the subject area, just an interested amateur, so maybe I don't have the depth of knowledge to make the distinction.
• I admit, like most people, I don't have a NPOV when it comes to politics. Particuarly when it comes to anarchist politics, as some would describe me as an anarchist sympathiser (though certainly not an actual anarchist, for a multitude of reasons irrelevant to my point). Then again, at different times I've been variously described as a capitalist sympathiser, socialist sympathiser, libertarian sympathiser, etc. It's all relative to the observer!
• Partly due to my first two points, but mainly because my tendency to support the underdog in the interests of fairness, I'd hate to see the articles merged if there is an actual difference. I feel that anarchist politics is something that few people have much awareness off, and hence it's vitally important that an educational resource like wikipedia present them well. If the page for capitalism or socialism is poor, it worries me less, as there are numerous other resources people can refer to. There is a lack of well written and neutral material available on anarchism. Most material available is written by anarchists, or their detractors, and hence is very heavily biased. SO I'd hate to kill off what could be the germ of something much needed.

Then again, unfortunately (IMO) Anarchism gives equal treatment to the socialist and capitalist ideas of anarchism. However much you feel "liberarian socialist" is an oxymoron, I can assure you my feelings are equally strong about "anarcho-capitalist". However, as discussed over on the talk page at Anarchism, it was decided that anarcho-capitalism should be considered a valid form of anarchism on the basis of the fact that they call themselves anarchists. That line of reasoning suggests that this page should stay as is too.

Then there's the problem that the Anarchism page makes liberal use (no pun intended) of the word "libertarian socialism". I'm not sure that any edits to change that wording will be accepted on that page, based on the talk history.

Then there's the challenge of the NPOV in organisation of the overall wikipedia pages. If we declare "libertarian socialism" to be equivalent of "anarchism" (using whatever sub brand of anarchism you want to call it), should anarcho-capitalist be declared equal to Libertarianism? I tend to consider those two equivalents also (both pro-capitalist, anti-government, pro-individualist movements), and using the logic that this page is redundant, then anarcho-capitalism is too. However, I'm not sure people who have worked on the page will agree to have it merged and redirected.

So I think there are significant practical difficulties in changing this page to a redirect. I'm not opposed to it per-se, but there are a lot of issues that would need to be thrashed out, across multiple pages. ShaneKing 07:49, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

VfD discussion

From Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, moved by —Eloquence 09:43, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

• Libertarian socialism Complete humbug, you can review the multitude of reasons why Here and here altho they should be obvious from the title alone. I was disputing the inclusion, but apparently thats not an option any longer, due to some sort of spontaneous concensus? Sam Spade 23:50, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a featured article, and I don't see that there is any legitimate objection to it beyond Sam's believing the title is an oxymoron. I'm tempted to list military intelligence but have always hated VfD listing that are there to prove a point. :-) Jwrosenzweig 23:57, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am a libertarian in the modern sense, and wholly disagree with libertarian socialism. However, I do recognise the roots of the term and the article's right to exist. I would, however, advocate the addition at the very top (pre-table of contents) of a disambiguation paragraph pointing out how different LS is from modern libertarianism. 16:02, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just because your political views mean that you can't accept such a concept, doesn't mean the article can not stay. There would be very little content in wikipedia if we deleted every article that had subject matter that some people didn't agree with. This is a well documented political theory, that predates modern Libertarianism. ShaneKing 00:55, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article is not only oxymoronic, but incoherent, illogical, and inherently POV. It would be POV to create an article called "The goodness of Satan" or "bitter suger" or "massless matter" and this is no different. Mcarling 04:06, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Here here! Perfect observation. I will additionally say that I think it would be fine to merge whatever is useful, and redirect to somewhere. I'm not expert enough on these sorts of politics to say where it should be directed to. Its not about my politics, or yours, or any of this. Its about making a usable encyclopedia entry. I'd honestly like to learn more about these politics, the problem is this junk is not teaching me anything. Its propaganda, doublespeak, unusable information in this present state. I require better than this, and I demand you make sense. Sam Spade 04:29, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • What a doofus you are, Sam. The expression you attempted to use is "hear, hear", meaning "listen". I require better than that and I demand you make sense too, so there. BTW: Keep the article. Looks great; my regards to the authors. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:10, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • It's not a POV oxymoron, it's describing a real political theory, that's been around since the mid-1800s (predating modern Libertarianism by about a century)! If we start deleting political and economic theories because some people do not like them, then we're not going to have much political or economic content left here. If you feel the content is of poor quality, fix it, don't delete. ShaneKing 04:32, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • This article seems to be a semi-clever POV attack on both socialism and libertarianism, which are exact opposites of each other. It reminds me of Alan D. Sokal's brilliant parody "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" except that this article is not nearly so clever as Sokal's. Anyway, parodies of legitimate articles do not belong in the 'pedia. Mcarling 04:48, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • It's not a parody. Libertarian socialists reject the idea of capitalism (so they're opposed to capital-L Libertarianism) but agree in individual freedom, hence the designation libertarian. They also reject state control (which is why they're opposed to forms of socialism involving a government, such as communism), but believe in the socialist principles applied by free will rather than coercian, so still call themselves socialist. It's not a joke, it's very real. See [1] for example. It's also in google directory, listing a couple of dozen pages.
        • Its real, its a really stupid joke, or at best a propaganda trick. I'm not saying its not real, I'm saying it doesn't deserve to be a page. Lets be intellectually honest, its alot more fun (an incidentally what I love about encyclopedias. Sam Spade 05:16, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Oxymoronic? Is that like saying that Libertarians and Anarcho-capitalists believe in freedom, when anyone can see that they obviously don't? Well that's what they claim, so as long as the wikipedia pages about those philosophies, make it clear that that's only what its adhearents think, then there's no reason to delete those pages. And by the same rational there's no reason to delete this page. millerc 22:23, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is not a forum for making a political point. - snoyes 06:14, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article describing a genuine political phillosophy that opponents of it seems to want to delete for purely POV reasons. The word "Libertairian" was used by socialists before beeing used by capitalists, and anyway even if it wasn't used by socialists first the fact remains that it was and is used by socialists so it should definately remain. Saul Taylor 10:47, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't understand why this page is up for VfD? The only reason I can think of is that a few people seem to disagree with it as a political philosophy. Every statement on the page starts with "Libertarian socialists believe..." which makes it obviously NPOV. As far as merging it with the artice on Anarchism, I think that the Anarcho-capitalists would object, and I think that the article on Anarchism should give an overview of all philosophies calling themselves anarchist. millerc 21:47, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Btw, just because some people have such a limited comprehension of political philosophies that they cannot understand why the name is valid, does not make for a reason to remove the Libertarian Socialist page. I know many evangelical Christians that claim that they can't understand atheism -- since "everyone has a God" they claim. But that doesn't mean that the atheism page should be deleted, or be turned into a strawman argument just to make some non-atheists happy. millerc
• Keep of course. This predates US libertarianism by many yearsSecretlondon 22:23, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is nothing but an attempt to confuse people about libertarianism by confusing it with socialism. Mainstream libertarians, including all the Libertarian Party members I know, consider socialism to be the opposite of libertarianism. If we had a paragraph that explains why Libertarian Socialist is an oxymoron, then I would change my vote. However, such a paragraph has been removed from the article twice. --pstudier 21:29, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)
  • As if the United States Libertarian Party were mainstream in any sense! ^_^ Guys, you may have stolen the word "libertarian" pretty well in that country, but it won't fly in the rest of the world. -- Toby Bartels 23:37, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. To the above: It's a name (like a proper name, not a description), you can't change it just out of convenience. National Socialism might not be too close to traditional socialism, Rand's objectivism might not really be objective and free market might not really be free, but these are the names of the things. You can't rename the "gravity" article to "attraction" because it's more descriptive... MikeCapone 01:36, feb 20 2004 (UTC)

The Article can't be oxymoronic because it describes something people believe. Earlier someone used the example of an article about; "the goodness of Satan" as an example of an oxymoronic title. If you were writing about Satanist belief or practice then this would not be oxymoronic because some of the opposition churches of Satan redefine him as a symbol of man's ultimate rebellion against authority, thus making him "good." Similarily if libertarian socialists believe in their politics and refer to them as libertarian socialism it is irresponsible and just plain stupid to delete an article because you disagree with it's politics. I for one think facsism is riddled with contradictions and so is free market capitalism I shall now go start a huge fight and attempt to force my fellow users to delete those articles based on my personal beliefs. That is after all what Wikipedia is about. Shame on Spade and all the other small-minded losers who don't realize theres a big world out there that mostly disagrees with their definition of things and shame on anyone who is as ignorant as they are and still trying to edit an encyclopedia.

Sam would like for this page to be merged and will cry if it is not

The only question is to where. I would like to hear any and all educated opinions on the differences between this and anarchism, and between this (Libertarian Socialism) and Communism. I am not an expert on this, and I am studying extensively to become one. I'm as interested as anyone, and the last thing I want is to reduce understanding. For example, I never wanted any useful information (such as the usage of this name by some) to be kept off the wikipedia, only the misinformative, innacurate title must be changed. Everything else can (and will) be edited as necessary. Any assistance would of course be appreciated. Sam Spade 10:36, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Communism and anarchism are overlapping sets. Some communists are anarchists, some anarchists are communists. Most members of either group are not members of the other however. This should not be surprising, as communism is a type of socialism, much like laissez-faire capitalism is a type of capitalism.

I do object to the section header "This page must be merged", as it appears the majority who have voiced an opinion are not in favour of any such thing. Especially since you have given no evidence that the title is misinformative or inaccurate, you've merely stated it as fact. That, my friend, is clearly POV. Convince us otherwise with reasoned arguments! We're all ears! ShaneKing 12:29, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Additionally, I should note that the talk archives from Anarchism seem to suggest that the phrase Libertarian socialism (and other aspects of that article) was pretty heavily hashed out over there. You might want to read and consider them, especially in light of what the flow on effects of renaming/redirecting this article might have. ShaneKing 12:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What is a "flow on effect"? Sam Spade 15:12, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Shane that I do not see that we "must" merge this article. It looks to me like at least half of those voting are satisfied to leave this article here, and undeleted. When that happens at VfD, we don't set about merging. Editing? Sure -- edit it to make it NPOV and accurate. But let's not move it around. And Sam, I believe Shane's phrase was meant to describe the fact that moving an established page requires rerouting dozens of redirects. If a page ought to be moved, this is a chore that must grudgingly be done. This page ought not to be moved, in my (and obviously several others') opinion, and so I don't think we need worry about the redirects at all. Jwrosenzweig 19:39, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A flow on effect is when you perform an action, it necessitates a second action. And that second action necessitates a third action. And so onn. Hence the actions "flow on" to other things. ShaneKing 00:16, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I understand that there is not concensus to do this. On the other hand, it is the right thing to do, and I will adgitate for it until it occurs. I do accept and understand that maybe it won't occur, but I feel that would be a serious loss. Allowing innacuracies like this (can anyone show me any difference between "libertarian socialism" and communism?) is simply intellectually dishonest, no matter how many support it. Sam Spade 21:39, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The most obvious difference between libertarian socialism and Marxist communism is this: Marxism argues for a dictatorship of the proletariat -- a period of government by the working class, after which government would whither away and a stateless communism would be created. Anarchist communists, or libertarian socialists, argue that the state will never whither away and must be destroyed or dismantled, and anarchy created by non-governmental institutions as soon as possible. --Sam Francis

Thank you very much for clarifying that. Am I to assume this dictatorship of the proletariat is the part where a stalin or mao or pol pot (ho chi minh, Kim Il Sung, Ceauşescu, etc...) takes over, and begins the rapid transformation into serfdom/totalitarianism? For some reason I have a hard time seeing where libertarianism comes in... Sam Spade 01:34, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what happens. To be sure, the Trotskyists will argue that the dictatorship isn't supposed to work that way (and Diktatur in Marx's 19th-century German doesn't imply the totalitarian control by a single individual that dictatorship implies in our 21st-century English). Nevertheless, historically, that's what has happened in Marxist governments. And libertarian socialists agree with other libertarians that this is just what must happen when Marxist ideas are put into practice, notwithstanding any theorising to the contrary -- this very point was the topic of much debate between the two groups in the First International. That's a rather huge difference between anarchist socialists and state socialists -- one that you don't seem to grasp in your calls for a merger. -- Toby Bartels 19:19, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You are correct sir. This is indeed an area I have no grasp of, so perhaps my primary complaint is that this article does such a lousy job of explaining that to me? I am as always hungry for knowledge, so if anyone can help me to understand how anything is supposed to get done (much less the redistribution of goods and services) w/o a state (or other non-anarchist hierarchy), I'd be quite chipper to hear it. Sam Spade 22:07, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure that the article could be written better. I think that you got off on a bad foot with some people (including me) when you tried to get the page deleted, then said "we must must merge", then attacked its featured articles listing. You might try putting it on Cleanup or even offering WikiMoney (if you like that sort of thing) for a clearer explanation. (It does seem pretty clear to me -- but then, I knew about libertarian socialism before I ever read this article!) Then if that doesn't work, if you go back to Featured article candidates saying "This article doesn't clearly explain the differences between libertarian socialism on the one hand and general socialism or anarchism on the other." (rather than "This article is oxymoronic and just an evil trick."), then you may get broader support. (I may even agree with you! As I said, this can be written better; I'd have to compare the other listings to know if this article has the same quality. And of course, a clarified removal policy may mean that I couldn't stop you even if I tried.) -- Toby Bartels 22:20, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I first learned of the page when I noticed a goodly number of dubious additions to "featured articles" w/o being able to find where they had been voted on or discussed. Unlike yourself (and so many others on the wiki) I am almost completely unfamiliar w the subtleties of modern left wing politics, and am yet desperately trying to understand them in order to discover where I might fit in. I took the test on http://www.politicalcompass.org/ and it told me that I am left wing, lol. So I hope you can understand my offense when while trying to learn more about the subject, I find things I can barely understand being labeled as "featured articles" and consisting of what I can only fairly describe as mislabeled communism. Being american, the word libertarian makes me smile and think of Thomas Jefferson, whereas the word communism makes me greatful for the Second Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights. In conclusion, I want to learn more, this article (and others on left politics) are not teaching me much of anything, and need to be overhauled, rather than listed as the wiki's best. Thank you for your support, and sorry if I came across as excessively belligerent. Sam Spade 22:54, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just for the record, I don't promise support for removal from FA -- as I said, I need to look at the other articles and see how this one compares. I suspect that over time, the average quality of a FA -- and thus the reasonable criteria for inclusion -- will heighten. So even an imperfect article -- and this one is indeed lacking in some respects -- might merit inclusion at our current level of quality. (BTW, I'm rather fond of the test at http://politicalcompass.org/; but I don't think that it fits American politics very well. It was written by and for Brits, after all; I like it anyways because I don't fit well into US politics myself. And I do like where it puts me -- down left.) Incidentally, most of the libertarian socialists that I know are in favour of gun rights -- even if they're not in favour of guns. -- Toby Bartels 19:06, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I take any suggestion of reasonable decision making as a sign of support. What I'm after here is whats best for the wiki, after all :). If you sincerely feel this article is "featured article" quality, I see nothing wrong with you voicing that opinion, but I am glad to hear you will be examining the criteria, and comparing it to others. In conclusion, featured articles list or no, this article needs work. I ask again, how will resources be redistributed in an egalitarian manner, particularly without a state/hierarchy? Is that remotely concievable? I will answer, to me it is not. Sam Spade 20:59, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This debate highlights an important issue that has been debated a lot over the years that the anarchism pages have existed. Should anarchism focus on libertarian socialism/socialist anarchism? This is the traditional form of anarchism, the main theory. But there are other ideas often thought of as anarchism -- individualist anarchism, anarcho-capitalism and primitivism, for example. My view is that this information should not be excluded from the anarchism page, but I am uncertain about how to deal with it there. And then, where do we describe socialist anarchism? What do we call it? --Sam Francis 22:53, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This -- and your previous paragraph about Marxism -- explain why this article must be kept separate from both Socialism/Communism and Libertarianism/Anarchism -- it is different from both of these (specifically being their intersection). -- Toby Bartels 23:37, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How about merging this with Libertarian communism? I can't see the distinction between the two philosophies. --pstudier 01:23, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)

I agree that article is an identical subject, and suggest they both be merged/redirected into an article with an encyclopedic title. Sam Spade 01:37, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

weak paragraph?

From Page History: MikeCapone (removed the worst and most non-encyclopedic part of a pretty weak paragraph)

How is "Criticisms of Libertarian Socialism" a weak paragraph? It explains why libertarians consider libertarian socialism to be an oxymoron. Without such an explanation, this whole article should be deleted. --pstudier 07:31, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)

I don't think the paragraph in question is so much weak, as it has grammer issues, and needs better sentance structure and such. I think I get the general idea of what your getting at, but I think were going to want the prose to flow a little differently ;) Sam Spade 07:55, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

moved from page

"A common criticism, made especially by non-socialist libertarians, is that a free market will spontaneously arise unless it is suppressed by force. Non-socialist libertarians believe is part of man's nature to take care of himself and his loved ones. Economic activity such as trading, use of money, etc. is one way they do this. Illegal drug trade is one example of economic activity which can not be suppressed even in prisons."

I think the info in here is sound, but the wording can be better. I'm not really expert in this subject tho, so it would be best of one of you at least helped revise it and put it back into the article. Sam Spade 07:58, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

One problem is that almost everyone is a "non-socialist libertarian". I for example say that there are NO socialist libertarians, and that the concept is bogus (a doublespeak/doublethink for communism, much like the word "anarchism" has been twisted to become for some). But even if there are some (for the sake of argument) they are clearly few in number, and its not best to clarify everything as an opinion held generally by people who are not them. Sam Spade 08:00, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am a socialist libertarian. Lirath Q. Pynnor

What fun! Sam Spade 07:37, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sam you do know that political terms differ from country to country and that socialist libertarian is not considered an oxymoron in Europe? Please say you do, if you don't stop editing this encyclopedia and go to college until your a little better informed.

Don't Feed the Troll

'Nuff said. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:31, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Removed sentence

"Adherents of capitalism or Austrian economics would argue that the distinction between "personal" and "productive" property is specious, and that consequently such paradoxes are doomed to arise regardless of the delineation chosen."

This alternative viewpoint does not provide any further understanding of libertarian socialism, thus is not appropriate for this page unless it is moved to the criticism section and reworded. - Kevin 02/24/04

Another problem is that it's not at all clear what ideology is meant by "capitalism" here -- as an ideological term, it is quite vague. But the Austrian argument is a fair one, so I'll put the rest of the sentence in the criticism. -- Toby Bartels 18:45, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

libertarian socialist

User Sam Spade threw up the factual disupte and asked for documentation showing that the use of the word libertarian is appropriate for this page. This documentation was provided. Why is the factual dispute header still being put up when others remove it? - Kev 03/02/04

When was any documentation provided? Sam Spade 19:16, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Are you talking about this? I hope not... Sam Spade 19:18, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Do you know what mutualism is Sam? Know anything about Proudhon or Tucker? I would guess not. Since you have repeatedly admitted to being ignorant of anarchist history, I will have to ask what evidence you require to prove that libertarian socialism is a valid term. I need to know this before hand, in order to ensure that the evidence will bind you to remove this ridiculous factual dispute header once provided.

I would also like to point out that your objection is entirely bogus even if libertarian socialism was an invalid term. There is factual evidence that socialists used the term to describe themselves over 150 years ago, and it is wikipedia policy that groups can within NPOV name themselves. That is why, for example, there is a page called "anarcho-capitalism" despite the fact that all the original anarchists rejected capitalism as contrary to anarchist theory. For you to be consistent here, you would have to apply your factual dispute header to that page as well. - Kev 03/02/04

No Sam Spade 00:10, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good, I will take note of your unwillingness to broadly apply your own standards as evidence of your insincerity when dealing with libertarian socialism. But I'm trying to give you the full benefit of the doubt. So I will repeat myself: Since you have repeatedly admitted to being ignorant of anarchist history, I will have to ask what evidence you require to prove that libertarian socialism is a valid term. I need to know this beforehand, in order to ensure that the evidence will bind you to remove this ridiculous factual dispute header once provided. - Kev 03/02/04

It looks like I was pretty clear above, eh? I never asked you to provide me w any information at all. My dispute is over the article being improperly named, which it probably is. I think it should be merged w something with a reasonable name, like anarchism or communism, and "Libertarian socialism" should therefore be a redirect. Theres pretty much no way you can convince me that having an article w this name is acceptable, esp. not w your belligerant attitude. I think I'll wait until cooler heads prevail. Sam Spade 02:30, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Theres pretty much no way you can convince me that having an article w this name is acceptable I will now proceed to remove that header then. Thanks! Kev 04:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sam - I guess you should look up the difference between communism and anarchism for a start. And then we can get into the different common usage of the word "libertarianism" in Europe and the US. Secretlondon 20:34, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the non-wiki definitions of those terms. Thats the source of my complainst w this article, I see it is as being an additional "Communism" article w a skrewy name. As for the difference between american and euro definitions of libertarian, thats kinda hard when all my references are USA based. Do YOU by chance have a euro definition of "Libertarian" that backs up your claims (preferably from a reliabel source). Thanks for your interest in accuracy, it is appreciated. Sam Spade 20:50, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary's definition (in the contenxt of politics; there is another definition for ethics) is:

One who approves of or advocates liberty. Also as adjective.

The OED supplies several quotations, none of which serve to define things further. Still, one of them is a relevant for our discussion:

1969 Listener 15 May 666/1 "The political activists...belong to what is known as the libertarian Left."

This is not labelled "erroneous" or anything, so the OED editors find such usage reasonable. While I'm quoting the OED, here is an item from "anarchy":

1892 Daily News 27 Apr. 5/8 "Anarchy means the placing in common of all this world's riches to allow each to consume according to his needs. Anarchy is a great family where each will be protected by all and will take whatever he requires."

-- Toby Bartels 22:05, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

anarcho-communism

I use this definition of Libertarian and this definition of Anarchy,

Why are you using the definition for anarchy rather than that of anarchism, since clearly Libertarian socialism would more closely identify itself with the later? Kev 06:52, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

and this definition of Communism. This article applies only to the last, as far as I can tell. The suggestion that people would somehow, for some reason, divide things equally,

Libertarian socialism does not suggest this, but rather, as the article already states: "Libertarian socialists believe that all social bonds should be developed by individuals who have an equal amount of bargaining power." This is very similar to the equality of opportunity that many ideologies support, except that in this case it is felt that in order for people to be free of coercion they must enter negotiations as peers, rather than beggar and master. Even those libertarian socialists who believe in dividing all things according to necessity (not all of them, mind you), would disagree with a strict equal division. Kev 06:52, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

abandon the pursuit of wealth and happiness,

This is an obvious straw-man. Libertarian socialism includes theories like syndicalism which would embrace industrialism in the provision of necessity and desire, that is of course a form of wealth. If, however, you mean abandoning the pursuit of wealth for its own sake, then I'm unsure of what your argument is. Why would people produce wealth for its own sake if they don't want to? As for happiness, clearly most if not all libertarian socialists believe they would be very free to pursue happiness in these conditions. The fact that you might not feel that way is unfortunate, but not backing for your argument anymore than if a libertarian socialist claimed that whatever system you prefer precludes happiness in general just because it happens to preclude it for them. Kev 06:52, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

and work with no incentive,

There are a number of operative incentive systems suggested for libertarian socialist communities, so this is another straw-man. I would like to point out, as so many other users have, that most of your arguments on this subject are based primarily on your own ignorance of it. Kev 06:52, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

or for some anarchist/communist ideal (in memory of Marx...)

Bakunin, a prominent anarcho-communist, was one of the foremost critics of Marx during his lifetime. Anarchists have been killed in large numbers in several conflicts with Marxists throughout history. Most of the anarchists I've met in my life (likely a whole lot more than you) distrust Marxists and denounce them to the same degree they do capitalists. Again, your claim could only be upheld in ignorance of this reality. Kev 06:52, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

is ludicrous, and worse, is propaganda. I personally find nothing more in opposition to my personal liberty (the word is NOT difficult to define) than the attempt by anyone, state or no, to take away my means of production and defense.

Far from trying to take away your means of production and defense, anarcho-communists seek to ensure that the means of production can no longer be restricted from you by landowners and that your means of defense can no longer be stripped from you by the state. If you bother to learn about it, I think you will find that the concept of possession is similar to property in that it helps protect the interests of laborers in a number of ways, without the disadvantage of giving hugely disproportionate bargaining power to individuals and institutions who have done nothing, or very little, to earn it, and use this power to restrict the liberties of those around them. Kev 06:52, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If anyone ever tried that, I would utilize every means necessary to defend my family, friends and livelihood.

As you should. No anarcho-communist would deny you the perogative to defend your life and the lives and freedom of those around you. In fact, many anarchists have died in history fighting for freedom against the very state and capitalist interests that attempted to restrict their freedom and kill their friends and family. Perhaps if you knew more about these individuals you would understand how insulting some of your claims are. Kev 06:52, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I know no one personally who would not do likewise. "management of the common good" necessitates a state,

This is clearly your POV. It is possible to believe otherwise, and to be reasonable in that belief. That is all one needs to say in order to defend the existence of this page as labeled. Clearly anarcho-communists do not advocate a state, so there is no deception involved here. If you think they will fail in their attempt to smash the state, then that is your opinion, but not indicative of false intentions on their part. Kev 06:52, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

attempting to steal my private property is in direct opposition to liberty,

If you are like more than 95% of the people in the world then libertarian socialism would not mean anything different in terms of your personal possessions. As for those pieces of property that are used as capital, they believe that the income generated by laborers from this property is stolen by the owner. In other words, in order to protect themselves as they labor libertarian socialists refuse to give up a any part of their labor entailment against their will. Surely you do not believe that it is acceptable to steal from a laborer in order to make another more rich? This is the protection of liberty from an anarchist POV, the fact that you probably disagree with it again does not make it unreasonable, contradictory, propaganda, or doublespeak. It makes it a different POV. Kev 06:52, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

and the violence and murder necessary in order to force people to give up their freedom necessitates hierarchy.

Libertarian socialists seek to expand and protect freedom from their POV, just as you do from yours. Just as it would be inappropriate for them to change the name of, say, the Libertarian page to read classical liberal (something far more accurate historically), it is similarly inappropriate for you to try to change this page for the same reasons. Groups have the perogative to name themselves, and this name is long since established and supported. There is at least one definition of libertarian that is met by this page in the view of libertarian socialists and that is all that is required to put to rest your objections. Kev 06:52, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The article is a doublespeak trick, and no century old newspaper articles will convince me otherwise.

And this is rhetoric that can't be argued against. If this is the position you take, then there is simply no reasoning with you, I could tell you that your own position is doublespeak, and believe it or not those century old newspapers would back up by argument far better than you have backed up yours. I find it interesting how much of your own mindset you are unaware of. You have refered, for example, to a slave owner as a prime example of that it is to be a libertarian. A human being who held others in absolute bondage and domination. Even while denying the title to individuals who would never even think to own slaves, who have spent their entire lives railing against the injustices of horrible tyrannies like the Soviet Union and the massive wars waged by states worldwide (this being Emma Goldman).

And that is not the only example I could mention. You call the referance to libertarian socialists as such "Orwellian" and "doublespeak." Do you even know that George Orwell fought in the Spanish Civil war against the fascists? Do you know that he was sympathetic to the anarcho-communists who fought alongside him, that he believed they were some of the most idealistic of his allies in their fight for human freedom? That he mourned their brutal suppression at the hands of the state communists? It makes your choice of words very ironic when you suddenly accuse those same anarchists of engaging in the very tactics Orwell warned against. Tell me, in 1984 wasn't it the state that created newspeak to keep its people under control? Yet here you are telling anarchists, the very people who seek to dismantle the state, that they are engaging in doublespeak. You probably aren't even away of the huge role the state had in pushing the definition of anarchy as chaos, just as you aren't aware of your own indoctrination. Heh, here you are using the definition of anarchy most frequently pushed by the state itself in order to denounce us, just like a good little citizen. You see how subversive this game is? You should stop accusing people of doublespeak before you find yourself the one accused, and far more appropriately I might add. I mean, at least we have the old newspapers to back up our use of the words, all you have are the definitions that survived the memoryhole. Kev 06:52, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Take a look at this. Even anarchists agree w me, heck, even your article (Libertarian socialists usually call themselves anarchists except when necessary to disambiguate or disassociate themselves with others who use the same term.) agrees with me.

Neither of these examples agrees with you, both indicate that libertarian socialist is not the only name this group of anarchists is known by, that does not make it an invalid term. Kev 06:52, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is anarco-communism, and just like any other form of communism, leads inevitably to a totalitarian state. Sam Spade 02:20, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is a statement of opinion, not verifiable fact (like you claim to be so fond of). As such, it has no place in support of this argument. Kev 06:52, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot to mention, I think the page should be titled anarcho-communism, w libertarian socialism linking to it. That would be honest. Sam Spade 02:37, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, it would just be inacurate. MikeCapone 03:40, 5 March 2004 (UTC)

Very inaccurate. Refering to libertarian socialism in the opening paragraph as a synonym for anarcho-communism frustrates me quite a bit. Anarcho=communists can refer to themselves as Libertarian socialists but it isn't always vice versa.

Libertarian socialism, along with anarcho-capitalism, are the two main groups under the umbrella of anarchism. Then, libertarian socialism is split further into two other groups, the Individualist Anarchists and the Social Anarchists. Anarcho-communism falls under social anarchism, but again as a sub-group. social anarchism is also made up of the anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-collectivists and, to a lesser extent, some mutualists.

If you want to title an article Anarcho-Communism, then you can do that to the Libertarian Communism one, but in my opinion it should, and only needs to, be linked to Libertarian Socialism as oppossed to linking it to libertarian socialism. {TPermyakoff

wow

That was pretty impressive. Would you mind adding that to the article (the ideas, not the exact wording, of course)? You certainly did a better job of explaining it than the article does (if you are correct, will someone second kev's explanations?). If what you say is correct, than I think I was wrong in saying the name of the article should be changed, wrong in most of my statements regarding it, but clearly correct in saying the article does a poor job of explaining this ideology. I'm not converted or anything (one of the reasons why I work so hard is to become one of those wealthy landowners you so despise) but I see in your argument sensible reasons for using the term libertarian (I also see some questionable areas, and a need for alot more explanation, but thats what the article is for, eh?). The big 2 questions I find now are 1. is Kev correct, at least mainly, in his description of Libertarian Socialism? and 2. Why doesn't the article articulate this better? I have no shame for failing to understand before, as some of these basics were not covered. Anyhow, assuming at least one person seconds kev (at least generally) and there is no concensus that he is wrong, I remove all objections to the article w the exception of asking that it be improved so as to better express these positions and values. I can't offer much assistance in the actual writing, due to my well known ignorance of this subject, but I will definately be following this article for a very long time to come. The subject intriuges me, and honestly I havn't had so much difficulty grasping a subject in living memory. Thank you kev, altho I am annoyed w some of the POV in your statements, esp. regarding myself, you put alot of work in, and did a pretty darn good job presenting that info (esp. in comparison to the article). Sam Spade 03:15, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Coming into this a little late, but I've read through this whole discussion and I'm arriving with an unbiased (Sure, that's what they aaaaall say...) perspective. Just a couple of points:

1. Is this really the right place to be arguing about whether libertarian socialism is a good thing or a bad thing (viz. "...I would use every means necessary...") or whether this is a good or bad article?
2. Sam, you began way back when with a concern about this article claiming "featured article" status, and have allowed your argument to devolve into out and out hostility. Why?
3. Yes, "libertarian socialism" sounds like an oxymoron, but so does totalitarian democracy. Yet the latter is not only a genuine political perspective, it has been a shaping force in the 20th century. And do we not deal with oxymorons every day as is? "Military intelligence"? "Corporate ethics"?

Please don't take this as criticism. I did not fail to note your assertion that you are eager to learn. That's certainly one reason I hang around here too. And I applaud the conciliatory tone of your comment above. I'm hoping that when you wrote "What fun!" you were serious, and if so, well said. There's nothing I enjoy more than a table-pounding political argument, then we all go out for a beer afterward. Denni 02:18, 2004 Mar 8 (UTC)

OK, I second Kev. (And BTW Denni, Sam actually began with a vote to delete this article. He's become less and less antagonistic over time, IMO.) -- Toby Bartels 23:54, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In answer to Dwindrims questions

1. No, it isn't, but it is the place for discussing/debating what the concept means, and how the article can best explain it.
2. I try pretty hard not to be hostile, altho I certainly admit to occasional bouts of grumpiness (esp. when I assume bad faith). I pride myself in my outrageous openmindedness (esp. since I'm an absolutist) and openess to alternate interpretations of data. What I am very agressive towards is what I see as falsifications, cover-ups, or patent nonsense. That's what I thought the article was.
3. I agree with you, what I thought was that the article was mislabeled, and was really a friendly face for Communism. I no longer think that's accurate, but I felt so strongly that way that even despite being a die-hard Inclusionist I felt the article should be merged (I never wanted content destroyed, just so ya'all know that). Anyhow, I generally have my table pounding debates while having a beer, but your method seems pretty good to ;) Speaking of which, have you seen this? For some reason I think the NPOV policy won't be enforced if you choose to attend ;). Finially, I have something interesting to share with you all. I was reading the Quaker article when I had a eureka. One of my main questions (why would anybody share, or work for nothing?) can be answered by them. Quakers are entirely compatable w anarchism, as far as I can tell, and their system seems to work, they get along quite nicely w/o much looting or glue huffing or any of the other naughty things I generally associate w anarchism ;). Thanks for the appreciation of my progress, Toby, and I invite any and all to join me for beers (see link above). Cheers, Sam Spade 01:17, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sam, you may whack me with a 2x4. On reflection, my comments were entirely POV, even phrased as (very leading) questions. Your replies tell me two things: our perspectives are far more similar than different, and you keep an open mind. Thanks. I'd love to join you at the tavern, but it's a long drive from Calgary to Dayton. Some other time, though :) BTW, WRT anarchism - I've always felt it would be the best way to run things, if we were advanced enough. The problem with anarchy is that it requires far greater responsibility than most people I've met are able to manage, and it wouldn't be unlike instituting a policy of democracy in a dayccare. It's not that the philosophy is bad, it's that the audience isn't ready. Denni 02:53, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)

I agree with Kev as well. But would like to point out, for the sake of Sam Spade's question about why the article wasn't written better, that the article would be written better if people like Sam Spade would help out by pointing out the parts of the article which are ambiguous or not well stated, instead of hindering the process by comming to the talk page, and throwing around his obvious POV and threatening to delete the page. Kev did a good job at explaining, but every point he made is something that can be found out easily with just a little bit of unbiased research. A Wikipedian shouldn't have to explain everything about a particular subject to someone who's being obnoxious. millerc 07:45, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, in Sam's defence, he's much less obnoxious now. ^_^ But seriously, Sam, it would be easier to improve these articles if your complaints were more specific. I know that sometimes that's not really possible, but if it is. -- Toby Bartels 02:00, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Specifics

Libertarian socialists advocate freedom while denying, to a greater or lesser extent, the legitimacy of private property, since private property in the form of capital leads to the exploitation of others with lesser economic power, and thus infringes on the exploited class's individual freedoms

and also

Libertarian socialists believe that productive property should be held communally and controlled democratically. For them, the only moral private properties are personal possessions.

This would seem to suggest my original thesis, that akin to communism, this philosophy intends to "steal" from us our private property against our will, so as to prevent any "exploitations" of someone else’s "class freedoms". I see above that Kev has this to say about it..

I think you will find that the concept of possession is similar to property in that it helps protect the interests of laborers in a number of ways, without the disadvantage of giving hugely disproportionate bargaining power to individuals and institutions who have done nothing, or very little, to earn it, and use this power to restrict the liberties of those around them.

When comparing the two, it seems I misunderstood kev to have been saying something rather more agreeable then it now looks. It would appear that this is the same old idea of taking our stuff, and then redistributing it more "wisely" ;). All against our will of course. In what way is this libertarian, rather than communist? What class am I when I work my way up from poverty and buy a bit of land, and start a small business? What if I don't want to give these things to "you" or "them"? What if I find it exploitative when people try to steal my stuff? Seems to me somebody’s going to get shot, and that of course involves a hierarchy ;) Sam Spade 08:36, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Libertarian socialists differentiate between the idea of authority based on power, and authority based on knowledge or skills. The term "power", in this instance, refers to the social or physical dominance of one individual over another. They oppose "illegitimate" authority based on economic and political power, and social hierarchy -- some believe that all authority based on political and economic power, and hierarchy is illegitimate.

What about authority based on "physical dominance of one individual over another"? Isn't that what it always comes down to in the end? As in my example above, either I can protect my stuff, or you can rob me and steal it, but s all based on hierarchy, in this case of wits and combat capabilities. I can understand how things could be non-hierarchical among those who agree to it, but how do you relate to those who want no part of your democratic federations? What about Mr. monopoly, who owns everything and doesn't want to give it to you? Do you kill him (thus involving the hierarchy and lack of free will of violence) or ignore him, leaving him out? From what I have seen, these "voluntary federations" generally amount to short lived communes, and co-op houses. Anything larger and you run into everyday working stiffs who want no part of such egalitarian sharing. Sam Spade 08:45, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Unlike anarcho-capitalists, anarchists believe there is little to no difference between threat of physical violence as a means of coercion and political or economic coercion. Thus the libertarian socialist argues that the anarcho-capitalist distiction between economic coercion, which they allow by the centralized accumulation of productive property and wealth, and physical corecion is an untenable dichotomy. Freedom only comes from a society in which all have equal bargaining power.

This seems to suggest violence is bad, but gives no alternative method of ensuring cooperation and surrender of the means of production. Will you save up and legitamately buy them? How will you aquire such means of production? Sam Spade 08:51, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade, since I wrote some of the portions of what you quoted above, I thought I'd try to give a response...

You seem grossly ignorant of the part that social conditioning plays in people's actions. Force isn't necessary when people feel like cooperating. Just look at the GNU/Linux operating system or wikipedia for what people can do when they are allowed to cooperate without any legal or social barriers. Humans are social animals. Cooperation is as just as strong of an emotion in people as is the drive to power (in this case greed -- which is really nothing more than a want for economic power). What matters is which of the two you cultivate through education. Our current culture worships greed, and indoctrinates us to believe that the accumulation of wealth/land is the way to "freedom". And commercialism convinces us that we need more than we actually do, so that we become entraped into such a system. But, our cooperative instincts are narrowly directed into carring about our few friends and nuclear familiy. It doesn't have to be that way.

Like Kev said, no one who calls him/herself a libertarian socialist wants to take your personal belongings. What they do want to change is the idea that capital investment (the purchase of productive machines) gives the capitalist the right to "steal", for an indefinite amount of time, from the people who actually produce goods and services. To a libertarian socialist the idea that someone can take a portion of something you worked on, for economic power, purely because they "own" the capital that you used is morally only one step removed from indentured servitude. While it might be fair to loan capital on some sort of contractual basis (with either party being able to abandon such a contract at any time), our current legal system and economic system coerce (force) those with less economic power into accepting conditions which amount to theft. And in practice, any sort of system that loans "capital" usually degenerates into such an arrangement. Personally, I think that if you buy a "productive machine" and you use it yourself, then I have no problem with you. The problem comes when we live in a society in which "capital investment" is so widespread and accepted that economically poor individuals really have no ability to opt out. In that sense they've lost their freedom, and no one has the right to deny someone else of their human rights. It's not about who owns what, but about who abuses a legal and economic system to gain more social dominance.

BTW people who historically have called themselves Communists, typically wanted to remove capitalism by enforcing what a libertarian socialist might call "state capitalism". Exchanging one master (the wealthy oligopoly) for another (the state monopoly) is not what libertarian socialists advocate. A common anarchist quote states "No Gods, no masters" (considering the ferver with which you proselytize on the atheism talk page, I think that quote will probably make you angry as well). This is one reason why so many people here deny that Communism and libertarian socialism are the same. millerc 22:06, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your quite right to assume that I find the "common anarchist quote" you cite philosophically offensive, and quite wrong to assume ignorance on my part in regards to social conditioning (I'm a psyche major). From what I can glean from your statements above, you feel that employers "steal" from workers (you seem to gloss over the service industry, but thats another subject) despite paying them for their voluntary labor. Additionally you appaear to be suggesting that the education system is largely to blame for these conditions being largely accepted. Finially, you appear to wrongfully assume that the desire for power is indoctrinated, and that their is an inclination for "co-operation" which somehow overcomes the (IMO) instinctual seekinging out for hierarchy. My question remains how would you change these circumstances? An interesting side note, I actually agree that the compensation system in modern capitalism is unfair, and that our education system (at least in the USA) is horrific. But I ask again, by what method would any of this be changed? How and why would any large group of people function without hierarchy? I can see this working in a commune (briefly), but never in a place as large as any present state. Sam Spade 23:03, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think you go to extreme lengths to over simplify what I said, and what others have said. There's a reason I put "steal" in quotes. You also make the same mistake that anarcho-capitalists make when they assume something is "voluntary", when it is coerced! I can point a gun to your head and tell you to give me your money or I will kill you, and you still have a choice to make. But just because you have a choice doesn't mean that what I did wasn't coercive. It's that simple! Also, maybe you haven't worked before, but I can tell you I've signed contracts before for summer work, while I was in college, where I was continually told to do more than what was stated that I would be asked to do in the contract, while at the same time the contract was held over my head that I signed to work for a specific number of weeks. The only reason I would have signed such a contract in the first place is that I needed the money, which I otherwise couldn't get. I consider that pretty coercive.

I don't directly blame the educational system for anything. Education is about more than just formal education. For instance many school age childeren in the U.S. spend as much time watching TV as they spend in school. The TV, in this case, is, regrettably, largely responsible for the social education of these childeren. I also don't use indoctrination as a bad word. Everyone is indoctrinated to some extent. I feel that my college education has indoctrinated me, but it has done so in a good way. I am much more unwilling to accept some of the 'economic' and 'social' theories that are given creedence in the U.S. And if you think this is because my education was "non-analytical", as I had recently heard a news commentator say about anyone who supposedly has "liberal" views, I would disagree.

I didn't say that the want for power is indoctrinated. I said that the want for power can be curbed by education, and by cultivating a social behaviour which favors cooperation to power. Currently our society cultivates the want for power, and not the want for cooperation. Both are inherent in humanbeings, but education accounts for quite a bit.

As far as speciffics on how such a society would exist, I think most libertarian socialists would be completely agianst any sort of ideology. I think education is important, which is why I brought it up, but I'm sure that there are other important factors as well. I don't know if anyone knows exactly how such a society would exist, but it is something to work toward. If you had read the libertarian socialism page you would have realized this. Noam Chomsky once defined an anarchist as someone who questions the legitamacy of power structures/hierarchies, and if the proponents of these structures cannot give adequate reasons for their existance, the anarchist looks to dismantle them. How one should go about dismantaling power structures, depends on the nature of the particular hierarchy. This is why education is important, so that people recognise such structures and how to dismantle them.

Also, when I talk about "science" I'm not talking about a collection of particular accepted facts, I'm talking about the rational effort which scientists make towards further understanding of the natural world. Similarly, from my understanding, when a libertarian socialist talks about anarchism, he/she is not talking about a particular state of society, he/she is talking about the continual effort made toward making an open and non-hierarchical society. millerc 00:32, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Simplification is IMO necessary when dealing with concepts as ill defined as those that we are discussing. The lack of proper explanation for such concepts is the source of my complaint. Why you are able to imagine (I frankly don't believe you do) that I could or would make such complaints w/o having read the page ("If you had read the libertarian socialism page") is beyond me. Anyways, I will again simplify. You have presented a the concept of "Libertarian Socialism" as a variant of anarchism involving a plethora of idealistic (IMO communist) elements, and confirmed my suspicions that there is no proposal for moving towards such an ideal. That lack of any methodology in achieving these ends needs to be accentuated within the article, as does the seemingly synonymous concepts of "Libertarian Socialism" and "idealistic" theoretical communism. The lack of any suggested method of implementation naturally suggests the traditional "lets have a dictator and sacrifice all freedom briefly so as to bring about the ideal faster" method of communism, which has left such a stark impression on modern political science. In short all of this needs emphasis, and the article in general needs simplification. Sam Spade 01:53, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please Sam, for the sake of everyone here, stop using your own ignorance as a basis of attack. You are mistaking a lack of knowledge on your part and a very wide diversity in the anarchist movement for an absence of proposed methods. But almost all anarchists have various methods by which they seek bring about a more anarchistic society. Mutualists and individualists believe in the creation of interest free banks and employee owned business, syndicalists believe in a federation of unions, egoists in the union of egoists, etc. Some libertarian socialists are revolutionaries who believe in insurrection, general revolt, unionizing, and protest. Others are evolutionaries who believe in education, and the building of collectives and co-ops. Most are a little of both. Liberatarian socialists can themselves be several combinations of these and other positions. I tend to agree with another commentator who indicated that it isn't our responsibility to educate you personally on all the aspects of libertarian socialism. We are trying to build this page, and it will move toward including much more detailed accounts of the ideology over time, but if you actually want to help on this you ought to spend more time educating yourself on the matter than you have. Kev 02:21, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That is totally false. Marxism, the kind of communism you are refering to, encourages the rise of dictators by supporting and pushing authoritative control of the populace. Anarchism totally rejects such control at all levels, it totally rejects the formation of a state to enforce communism upon unwilling individuals, so accusing us of following in some kind of similar tradition of communism to encourage dictatorship is simply slander. Kev 02:21, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You seem to want to have it both ways. You want the article simplified to account for the fact that you can't get your head around these so-called "vague" concepts, but at the same time you want it expanded to better educate individuals who not only know nothing about it, but like you, apparently have no interest in edcuating themselves on the matter. This page ought to help people better understand libertarian socialism, but it can't do that for people who are trying their best not to. Kev 02:21, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I thought I was clear on the idea that libertarian socialists have to try different things to achieve their goals, but the main idea was that we should inherently question social power structures. Kev brings up some important ways in which these goals may be achieved, but each one of the above methods only addresses a subset of the entire problem. It is by addressing problems with solutions as they arise that makes the idea of libertarian socialism work. I also tend to come from an evolutionist POV, and think that its the process that's important for us today, not the exact nature of some future society. Also, I do believe that you (Sam Spade) read the article, but the reason I claimed you didn't, was to point out that reading should also consist of thinking about the material. I noticed that you responded to my first post rather quickly, and you simplified quite a bit, which makes me think that you don't take the time to re-read or think about the material, as you should. millerc 04:41, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Another option is that I read and see thru ideosyncratic jargon at a brisk pace, but it would be immodest to describe myself that way ;) Sam Spade 05:59, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Anarchism

I have a major objection to Libertarian Socialism being equated to anarchism and it's adherents to anarchists. This is used a lot during the article and I feel violates the NPOV. Anarchism is a seperate a very different term including several different groups of adherents, Liberarian Socialists being only one of them. It could be said that Libertarian Socialists commonly call themselves anarchists and are considered to be anarchists, but it is incorrect to say that Libertarian Socialism is a synonym to anarchism as the page at the very least implies. --Thorn969 08:12, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think it's important to make it clear that libertarian socialists are anarchists, so if you want to use a more specific term, "socialist anarchists" or "anarchist communists" would be much better. --Sam Francis

I don't have a problem with libertarian socialists being called anarchists. I just feel it is important to make it clear that anarchist can refer to other groups. If you use libertarian socialist and anarchist interchangably people might get the mistaken impression that they are one and the same. Also, the article seems to speak a lot about general anarchist history rather than focusing on defining what a libertarian socialist is. Some of the historical figures and events mentioned weren't for left-anarchy but rather against the state in general. I feel this article should be rewrittan to better reflect and explain what Libertarian Socialism is about with maybe a section about historical figures anarcho-communists claim as there own. However, I cannot rewrite it myself right now because I haven't slept in over 20 hours and I don't know that much about the actual theories of Libertarian Socialism.--Thorn969 15:44, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

While most libertarian socialists would be happy to be described as anarchists, I don't think libertarian socialism automatically implies anarchism. Just as a right-wing libertarian can advocate a minimal state, so can a left-wing libertarian (council communism is sometimes classed as a form of libertarian socialism, and even left-wing social democrats like Peter Hain have used the term). --Solri 14:49, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree that libertarian socialism should not be directly equated with anarchism by this article -itself-, that would be misleading and simply false as there are many other forms. However, stating that libertarian socialism is often called simply "anarchism" is a fact, and one relevant to this article and the history of the ideology. For this reason, I'm tentatively changing one instance of this back while inviting further discussion and trying to weed out any places where libertarian socialism is actually called anarchism by the authors of the article or indicated -to be- anarchism rather than simply stating that some call it such. Kev 20:14, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I realize that the authors of this article consider Libertarian socialism a type of anarchism. But basically the entire article just discusses general anarchism, which there is already an article on. What makes Libertarian socialism different from anarchism per se? Please focus on this, and perhaps the general stuff should be assimilated to anarchism. Because as the article reads right now, one gets the strong impression, basically repeated over and over, that Libertarian socialism is just a synonym for anarchism. If this really is the case of course, then there is no point to a separate article. Please explain the differences, as you understand them. Thanks.--Pharos 02:25, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

illegitimate authority

The following text: "They oppose "illegitimate" authority based on economic and political power, and social hierarchy -- some believe that all authority based on political and economic power, and hierarchy is illegitimate."

seems to indicate that there are some libertarian socialists who believe types of authority based on hierarchy and economic and political power are legitimate. Who and what? As anarchists they necessarily believe that authority derived from these institutions is illegitimate. That there are some other types of "authority" that really use a different definition of the word altogether, like "authority" drawn from respect or utility based on knowledge and skill does not indicate that coercive institutional authority is accepted by libertarian socialists. So I've changed that sentence to reflect this. Kev 21:16, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Marxism

The following passage does nothing to illuminate libertarian socialist theory, as no claim contrary to its point is being made and the passage itself doesn't even deal with libertarian socialism. And the "little ghetto" part is particularly revealing of the author's perspective. I've deleted it, perhaps someone will want to move it to the Marxist page, though I'm sure it is already there somewhere. "It should be pointed out that the Anarcho-Communist conventions aren't limited to their little ghetto; the dialectical thought of the revolutionary Marxists associated with Lenin and the Third International, which stressed experience and consciousness as opposed to taking a strictly economistic view of things, uses the same rudiments of thought in order to describe how classes arise and what class consciousness is."

lol, and I should hope this one doesn't even need a reason for the deletion, but the above reason applies: "The source of all of this is a combination of 19th century Romantic philosophy, in particularly Hegel (in addition to Kant) and Schelling, and the uniqueness of rural Russian communities, which, at the end of Europe, possessed a backwardness which was purer than the cultivated consciousness of the European heartland. But this gets into too much history."

In addition to being plainly POV, much of it is tangentially related at best, and that which is stated is disputable in addition. Nothing here worth saving IMHO. Kev 22:12, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Critique of Libertarian Socialism

Apparently one of the authors here saw fit to repeat a capitalist critique of libertarian socialism in two different places. Since the criticism was the exact same in both instances, I have removed the one outside the criticisms section and transplanted the part of the reply that wasn't already there. I've posted these passages here for referance:

But is violence necessary in maintaining such a society? Some people feel that anarcho-communism could only be sustained by the use of force -- many of these individuals argue that capitalist enterprises would spring up in such a society unless they were suppressed. These critics see this as an inherent contradiction within socialistic anarchist theory: they feel that social anarchism could not be sustained without coercion, but if coercion were used, it would not be anarchistic.

Most of anarchism's adherents will start by arguing that it is force that maintains current capitalist economics and all forms of government -- the basis of the argument being that hierarchal relationships ultimately rest on force. Certainly, there are few, if any, anarchists who think that violence should play a role in a future society. Some anarchists, who have been called anarcho-pacifists, reject violence altogether.

Kev 22:30, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Controversial Capitalization

The term Libertarian in following sentance seems to be controversial:

Libertarian socialism should not be confused with Libertarianism, which is the philosophy of the United States Libertarian Party.

The sentance makes a direct statement that big-L Libertarianism is the philosophy of a specific group (and so goes beyond the definition of small-L libertarianism - which is simply the belief in liberty, which has many interpretations), as such I believe it should be capitalized, just like Objectivism is capitalized when talking specifically about Ayn Rand's philosophy, and Communism is capitalized when talking about the philosophy of a specific communist party. When Libertarianism refers to a specific philosophy, it becomes a proper noun, and so should be capitalized as any proper noun would be capitalized. millerc 06:18, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A specific example... I took the following from the article:

The basic philosophy of libertarian socialism is summed up in the name: adherents believe that management of the common good (socialism) is necessary, but that this should be done in a manner that preserves individual liberty and avoids concentration of power or authority (libertarianism).

Obviously the libertarianism used at the end of this sentance means something different than Libertarianism. What's the difference? Here it simply means a philosophy, any philosophy, that advocates individual libertry. Big-L Libertarianism is specific to a particular interpretation of libertarianism (one that belongs to a political party), and so is a proper noun. millerc 06:27, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

American-style libertarianism is much, much broader than the United States Libertarian Party. If nothing else, there are also Libertarian Parties in Canada, Costa Rica, the UK, and New Zealand. The convention that I have always seen is to use "Libertarian" to refer specifically to the members or activities of the Party, and "libertarian" to refer to any of their philosophical sympathizers. How about we just say Libertarian socialism should not be confused with pro-market libertarianism, the philosophy associated with groups such as the United States Libertarian Party.? - Nat Krause

Makes sense. Kev 09:19, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. millerc 00:08, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Kantian Philosphical Foundations are a Bunch of Crap.

I just read this article. The Philosophical foundations section is totally incoherent. Libertarian Socialism and Kant??? I don't see the connection and it is poorly written besides. I don't have time to read all the discussion comments above, but based on the philosophical foundations, I suspect LS is complete crap, if you want my POV on it. I was tempted to vandalize the article, but I chose to rant here and let someone else worry about it. [User:MPS] October 12, 2004

Personally I don't really care much for the entire "philosophical" section, but I do think that calling libertarian socialism "crap" just because you seem to have some problems with a single section is itself irrational and complete crap. BTW did you notice that the section never stated LS had direct Kantian foundations, it only stated that there were similar methods, etc?

So why are you so intent on hearing yourself speak, instead of attempting to better the article? This talk page has already seen its share of irrational and poorly stated arguments for why LS is "crap". There are no specific points about how to make it a better article by what you have stated and there's no specific criticism to put in the criticism section, and that's all that really matters. No one gives a crap (at least I don't) if you disagree with it as a political philosophy. Wikipedia's not here for anyone to prostyletize.

The reason that section isn't well written is because I suppose that no one really cares. Libertarian socialism is a very general philosophy, that has a wide diversity of opinion, and the authors here have different concerns about what should be written. Someone wrote that section because they may have thought it was good information, but I haven't seen a major change in it since I started looking at this page about half a year ago. millerc 16:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Chuck F's edit war with the rest of wikipedia

Please check the talk page of liberal demoractic party of australia for previous edit war about defination of libertarian in australia Chuck F 06:39, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See Talk:Liberal_Democratic_Party_of_Australia. I've reached the point where I'm going to start writing the articles needed to substantiate the use of the word libertarian in Australian English. Fifelfoo 07:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Again you know considering there is libertarian parties(with the main use of libertarianism), (oh how we've been thourgh this argument so many times on other pages) in Canda, America, Costa rica(which is the largest and strongest libertarian movement in the world, and in a non-english speaking country at that!, why don't we call it libertarianism as praticed in Costa Rica?), Australia(if you were in nsw last election, you should have voted group w, Libertarian indepedents!) The Netherlands, New Zealand and Portugal. http://www.isil.org/.

Modern day libertariansm is this libertarianism, what you are doing is equivalnt to me running around and changing all the articles that have the world liberal in them to modern liberal or to kensian liberal or common good liberal or something along thoese lines. (because I'm sure in some places liberal still means the same thing as libertarianism) Chuck F 07:14, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's just bizarre. That's what you're doing. Your trying to make all uses of the word libertarian mean what you want evern though they don't mean that in reality. And what hell does google's ranking technology tell you about how words are used? How do you know if someone called a libertarian is an anarchist, socialist or capitalist?

because I was actually bored enough to go thourgh the first 200 pages that were listed there and they all refered to libertarianism in the modern day sense. I checked all the parties I listed above have the same platforms as the rest of the modern day libertarians.

again what you are doing is like me going thourgh pages that use the word liberal nowadays and adding some post-fix to them,, that term has been changed, as has libertarianism.Chuck F 13:21, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This use of the term is a more technical one. Yes, it contradicts simple-minded uses of the word libertarian, but it is technically correct. There is a growing movement to re-assert the older, more correct use of the term. For example, the creators of last year's hit movie "The Corporation" have been giving interviews where they describe themselves as "libertarian socialists."

In what sense is it more technical? - Nat Krause 08:00, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please SIGN your posts with ~~~~. It is extremely difficult to track a discussion otherwise. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 13:35, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Suggets you guys ask for arbitration. -- Chris Q 13:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

actually I'm fine with meditation, or just something where he'll actually discuss with me instead of just constantly vall me a vandalChuck F 13:52, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Chuck is already listed under a Request for Arbitration. Everything else has been tried and failed to deal with his vandalism. 16:13, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ChuckF's edits reject and demean a rich philosophical tradition that continue to this day, predating his party's usage of the term. --Improv 14:18, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would like to see a sentance removed from page

After ChuckF gets done with this sillyness, could someone remove the itallicized text from the following on the page:

In this article, the terms libertarian socialism, libertarian communism, anarcho-communism and left-anarchism are used as synonyms, this leads to confusion in the minds of some non-political minded people as they don't reliese that these are the same things. For this reason it is perhapes better to simply call one self an anarchist or a communist.

The part in itallics is blatant POV, and non-encylopedic. millerc 07:39, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could this be rewritten as "These terms are occasionally misinterpreted due to the general connotations of the words involved. Because of this, some libertarian socialists simply refer to themselves as anarchists or communists."? taion 10:30, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It should definately not stand as it is now, little more than POV speculation. Taion's suggestion is probably a good way to deal with the info. Kev 20:55, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Concur with Kev, although would be equally ok with simply not having the comment. --Improv 01:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The edit war seems to have been in part over this line, [2]. Looking through the history it looks like the line was added by User:211.27.72.120, [3].

Preparing for a Poll

As the page is now locked, we need to find an arbitrator to conduct a poll regarding the content of this page. Until then, try to think of some good questions for the poll, whoever you might be. --Improv 20:10, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And possibly keep the page protected in the meantime? Looks like the edit war is back on in full earnest. taion 09:15, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please don't try to get it protected again, that just stalls resolution. I think your latest edit is very good except that it sorta undermines the original intent of that sentence to make it very clear to readers that libertarian means something entirely different to a libertarian socialist than it does to a member of the Libertarian party. Your version does a good job of suggesting that there are different meanings, but it doesn't actually indicate that the meaning of the libertarian party is different than that of the libertarian socialist. I realise this is implied, but perhaps it should be more clear. I'm trying to think of how to reword your version to account for this, but the edit war folks seem very touchy so I'm going to just post suggestions here to be thrown about:

"The term "libertarian" has multiple meanings, its meaning for libertarian socialists diverges a good deal from its use by some other groups. Most notably..."

or maybe,

"Most notably, it may also refer to a radically divergent philosophy associated with groups such as the United States Libertarian Party."

I dunno ;), sorta fishing for a better wording. Kev 11:37, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How does

"The term "libertarian" in political contexts has multiple meanings. Most notably, it may also refer to the philosophy associated with groups such as the United States Libertarian Party. This philosophy has major differences from libertarian socialism, and, where necessary, this article uses the term "Libertarian" in reference to that philosophy."

sound? I'll even remember not to mark it as a minor change this time =D taion 00:29, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sounds great =) Kev 00:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

About the reverts: I am enforcing a temporary injunction against User:Chuck F, who has been using open HTTP proxies to evade a block. I apologize for the reverts but they're necessary. Rhobite 15:12, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Chuck's vandalism

While most of Chuck's edit warring is merely POV, his latest edit here amounts to vandalism, in the form of inserting grammatical/spelling nonsense ("The term "libertarian" in political contexts has multiple meanings. spefically In the United States and other areas with philosophies similar to that of the United States Libertarian Party, Libertarianism today is used more commonly to refer to the philosophy espoused by those groups.") and removing a perfectly good link (Victor Serge). RadicalSubversiv E 07:50, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chuck your latest revert refers to the talk page but there is nothing new here for anyone to read. You seem to be flaunting many wikipedia rules at once and given the nature of your crusade to insert your POV about the word libertarian throughout wikipedia I am tempted to simply revert everything I see. However, I am happy to await your explaination for a couple days before I join others here in reverting what you are doing. Please avail yourself of this opportunity. Kev 09:00, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure much can be done about this person's stuff short of a ban. There doesn't seem to be any reason involved. The lights aren't even on. Sunray 09:40, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

- i'm not sure why you people so badly want to distort the truth and somehow not mention the fact that what the main usage of libertarianism is today. Chuck F 10:31, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for responding Chuck. Do you have evidence that this particular meaning of libertarianism is the "main modern usage" worldwide? Kev 10:47, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I suspect that what he means is that if you ask some random person who knows a bit on these matters, they're likely to associate Libertarian Capitalism with Libertarianism and not even know about Libertarian Socialism. This is, alas, probably true in many parts of the world. However, I'm not sure if this should qualify for "main modern usage" on an encyclopedia -- they often aim for something closer to "deep knowledge" of a topic, and I suspect that, in academic waters, we'd find that there really isn't a "main modern usage" of this term. --Improv 12:49, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have no doubt that there are parts of the world in which libertarianism is associated primarily with capitalism. But for Chuck's edits to stand he would have to demonstrate that this is true in most of the world, and I've seen so such evidence of this. In fact, I'm unsure of whether or not that kind of evidence is likely to be within our scope of being able to determine. Anyway, he needs to make his case more clear to me and do so soon if he doesn't want yet another person reverting him at every turn. Kev 01:06, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chuck, are we talking about the term libertarianism or libertarian socialism here? It's not clear to me. Something you might wish to take a look at: The Political Compass

I've taken a look at it in the past, from a person who was using it as thier only source to destroy libertarianism page, Just because people say they are npov cite, doesn't mean they are... the cite obviously is pov, As I asked other people to reach extreme limits of thier scale for right-wing libertarianism style.

Chuck, I see that your reverting continues but your answering of my questions has not. Evidence is required for your edits to stand, please supply it. Kev 04:25, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chuck, your latest defacing of User:Improv/lib draft dec2004 combined with your machine-like reversion of both libertarianism and libertarian socialism while refusing to answer any of my inquires, reflects very poorly on your actions. Kev 14:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Draft for a RfC on the issue

You all are invited to visit and comment on a draft for a RfC on this and related articles that will eventually likely become a poll. Please remember we are not discussing the topic itself, just the suitable neutral number of issues we want to cover. --Improv 17:12, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Personal Property vs. Capital?

So you so-called "Libertarian Socialist" people think that personal property (e.g., your own house) is legitimate, but capital or business property used for profit isn't? Then does that mean that you'd confiscate my house if I had the effrontery to start a business in it? Maybe even for making a little bit of money from home doing Web development or something? Real freedom-promoting ideology, that... Dtobias 23:41, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If by "profit", you mean using the legalism (which must be enforced by some governing body, even within "anarcho" capitalism) of private property to subjugate others (what some people call wage slavery); then yes, libertarian socialists wouldn't have anyone subjugated to the will of another. Libertarian socialists believe you can do anything you please, just as long as others are free to do the same. No one would confiscate the house in which you are living, but then, nither will anyone enforce contracts or legalisms based in any way on the subjugation of others for your own economic benefit. The concept is not that hard to understand; the concept of a "buisness" itself need not be present in any society. Doing things for yourself (DIY) is a deeply held belief of many libertarian socilaists, regardless of if you want to call it a "buisness".

Just a reminder -- this page is to discuss the article, not to discuss politics. Regardless of our political affiliations, unless it's clear that our personal biases are influencing the article, I don't see how discussion/rhetoric/etc on politics is productive here. It might be fun in other forums though. --Improv 16:08, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

With apologies to Improv, I wanted to respond to this with my own interpretation, even though it's an obvious troll. It may be useful to someone else reading :) ... Dtobias, You are misunderstanding the socialists' definition of "profit." Profit is income gained from other people's labor in socialist nomenclature, generally by employing them to make use of captial that they have no ownership or control over in exchange for a wage. In your example, if you did not employ anyone else, you could use your personal property for whatever business ventures you wished, as the money you earn is from your own labor. However, if you employed anyone else, they should have equal say in the use of the capital in the business as you, as well as in the distribution of the resulting earnings. This is because socialists don't believe that a boss/worker power and ownership hierarchy is valid. Please note that this is a common theme among all socialism, and not just libertarian socialism, though some forms of socialism expand it such that all means of production should be communally owned. Also note that in a libertarian (ie, anarchist) socialism, there is no state to confiscate your home or any of your captial, provided that it was originally owned by you. However, as the other responder mentioned, captialist ownership of capital and property, and contracts which set up such power hierarchies simply wouldn't be protected or regarded as enforcable by whatever communal law enforcement or court system is set up. Other forms of "unearned" income, such as rent and interest, would similarly be un-protected. There's a huge amount of material on all these subjects available -- I would suggest that you do some research before spouting off another such "challenge." PenguiN42 18:54, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Left or Right?

One problem with using the terminology "left libertarian" and "right libertarian" to distinguish the socialist and capitalist libertarianisms respectively is that, at least to the capitalist libertarians, it does not match the terminology they use to describe themselves. Some (capitalist) libertarians regard themselves as transcending the traditional left-right spectrum altogether (the "Nolan Chart" of the political spectrum is a two-dimensional graph with libertarians at the top, perpendicular to left and right), while others do make a distinction of "left libertarian" vs. "right libertarian", but entirely within a capitalist worldview (socialism doesn't enter the picture at all, because from this viewpoint "libertarian socialism" is an oxymoron).

By this standard, a "left libertarian" is somebody whose primary concern is civil liberties, such as opposition to the war on drugs and to government censorship; such people may also tend to be on the "left" side of some of the "culture wars", like being in favor of secularism over religion. However, they still support capitalism over socialism, but don't particularly emphasise the business- and economic-oriented parts of libertarianism; it's not their main interest.

On the other hand, a "right libertarian" emphasises economic issues where free market principles are involved, and may be uncomfortable with parts of the movement that emphasize libertarian positions on such things as drug legalization, though they don't philosophically oppose the libertarian view there.

Dtobias 12:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, these are the technical terms for those two viewpoints. Refer to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The term "libertarian capitalism", despite any further descriptive value, is essentially something we made up. Moreover, these terms are both reasonably well-accepted. The first Google hit for "right-libertarianism" is a right-libertarian essay. taion 18:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whatever else, the term "libertarian capitalism" is not something we made. It goes back to at lewast the 1970s and was used by libertarian capitalists in America and other countries to distinguish themselves at a time when libertarian didn't mean what it apparently means in America today (the Libertarian Party). 195.92.67.71 14:41, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When I got involved with libertarianism and the Libertarian Party in the early 1980s, I never heard the term "liberarian capitalism", or "libertarian socialism" for that matter; at least in the circles I frequented and in the books and periodicals I read, it was taken for granted that "libertarian" and "socialist" were mutually exclusive positions. The libertarian movement ran the gamut from the very right-wing Foundation for Economic Education to some much more leftist-influenced people and groups such as Samuel Edward Konkin III's "New Libertarians", who seemed kind of "fringe" from the standpoint of a more-mainstream LP supporter, but were still firmly capitalist rather than socialist. It wasn't until much later that I even heard of the existence of any such position as "libertarian socialism". However, if there's a group that calls their ideology that, then there should be a page about it here. Dtobias 15:36, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Right-libertarians may want to re-structure the political landscape by doing away with left and right as they have attempted to do with erasingt he meaning of the word Anarchism, but this one will be harder to pull off. Left and right is real, and refers only to economic spectrums here. The libertarianism refers to things like civil liberties and democracy. Economics is not covered in the word libertarianism unless it is capitalized to refer to the Libertarian party in the US. It's really much simpler than the right makes it out to be.--Che y Marijuana 01:04, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

In the context of contrasting left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism, the left-right distinction is correct in terms of economics issues. However, it is often the case that identifying a philosophy as right-wing also implies that it also opposes what might be termed social freedoms such as abortion or same-sex marriage. Moreover, there's been some association between [[|left-wing politics|leftism]] and "big government". Clearly, neither of these charges are true of right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism respectively. Economically, right-libertarianism may very much be labeled a right-wing doctrine, but a naive reading of this term obfuscates its stance on social issues. This is why I originally inserted that sentence as a disclaimer, though it could have been better worded and probably ought not stand without revision. taion 04:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why here, and not Anarchism?

(I seem to recall seeing someone raise this issue recently, but can't remember where. Now that Chuck's edit warring over ownership of the L-word has mostly ceased, I'd like to raise it here.)

Put bluntly, almost all of the content of this article is actually about anarchism. To the best of my knowledge, libertarian socialism is, by and large, a synonym for (left) anarchism. The differences, it seems to be, are in connotation and usage, rather than fundamental meaning. Libertarianism socialism, unlike libertarian communism or anarcho-syndicalism, is not a distinct branch of anarchist thinking. It'd probably be going too far to turn this into a redirect outright, but I would like to humbly suggest that most of the content here should be merged with Anarchism (which isn't as good an article, IMHO), and replaced with a shorter article explaining the background for and usage of the term.

Thoughts?

RadicalSubversiv E 05:57, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That sounds about right to me. Theoretically, there might be a distinction between libertarian socialists and (left-)anarchists, the same way that there is a distinction between (pro-capitalist) libertarians and anarcho-capitalists (in each case, the latter is a subset of the former). However, whereas there are many free-market minarchists out there, socialist minarchism doesn't appear to be a very vital trend. Therefore, it doesn't need a very long article of its own. - Nat Krause 06:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is apparently referencing my comment above, which I reproduce here for convenience.--Pharos 06:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I realize that the authors of this article consider Libertarian socialism a type of anarchism. But basically the entire article just discusses general anarchism, which there is already an article on. What makes Libertarian socialism different from anarchism per se? Please focus on this, and perhaps the general stuff should be assimilated to anarchism. Because as the article reads right now, one gets the strong impression, basically repeated over and over, that Libertarian socialism is just a synonym for anarchism. If this really is the case of course, then there is no point to a separate article. Please explain the differences, as you understand them. Thanks.--Pharos 02:25, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why not compare the two and insert what's missing in the Anarchism article from this article and put up a redirect to the Anarchism article? That seems like it's the best thing to do. --Jazz Remington 07:03, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would be careful about merging any content. Libertarian socialism is considered as a synonym of anarchism by many people, but IMO libertarian socialism is not the same as individualist anarchism or primitivism. Both individualist anarchism or primitivism are parts of anarchism (but not part of LS), although both are smaller movements than libertarian socialism. millerc 21:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by individualist anarchism. Primitivism has a very tenous claim for fitting into the broader anarchist tradition (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc.), but to the extent that it does, that's the libertarian socialist tradition. RadicalSubversiv E 06:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Individualist anarchism. Primitivism does fit into the broader anarchist tradition, I'm not disputing that, but is it libertarian socialism? Noam Chomsky claims to be an intellectual heir to classical liberalism (which honestly, in the USA, Canada and Western Europe we all are to some extent), but that doesn't make the libertarian socialists that have intellectual ties to his work liberals, nor does it even make Chomsky a liberal. millerc 22:47, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism is a philosophy calling for the absence of government. Socialism is a philosophy calling for the absence of capitalism, or the presence of an egalitarian social order. Libertarianism is a philosophy calling for the presence of liberty, or the absence of restrictions on it. Different people may mix and match any of these, or else proclaim one or more of them to be incompatible with one another. You can't regard any of them as either synonyms or antonyms of any other. Dtobias 22:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism means absence of rulers; anti-statism, is a philosophy calling for the absence of government. millerc 05:42, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For (pro-free-market-capitalism) libertarians , those are the same thing. - Nat Krause 06:34, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I meant that the definition is too narrow. AFAIK anarchism to an anarcho-capitalist is extreme anti-statism, but it means more to others. For instance, I know much of our disagreements center around capitalism, but many anarchists are also anti-religion (at least religions that claim salvation through a certain person or institution). Christian anarchists don't believe that "earthly" institutions have divine authority, and that makes them part of the anarchist tradition. millerc 22:47, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anarchists are anti-statists, in that they rejecting the state as an institution excercising hierarchical authority. Many do distinguish between the state and government (i.e., formal social organization) in the broadest sense. RadicalSubversiv E 06:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Several people have stated that there is too much overlap between this article and Anarchism. While I agree with that, I do think we should retain an article on Libertarian socialism, rather than a redirect I like the suggestion by Radical, seconded by others that portions of this article should be transfered to Anarchism and that this article should be a) shorter, b) explain the background for, and usage of, the term. The focus should be on what makes Libertarian socialism distinct. Sunray 23:54, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

Alternately, text could be moved here from anarchism, accomplishing the same reduction in redundancy. This might be better. I am now picturing the situation as a Venn diagram where the circle for "libertarian socialism" is almost entirely inside the circle for "(anti-capitalist) anarchism", and the circle for "(anti-capitalist) anarchism" is mostly within the circle for "libertarian socialism", but has significant portions that are outside of it. - Nat Krause 06:34, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about this, though I think your basic rationale is reasonable: anarchism is a slightly broader term. However, anarchism is by far a more common one. Better to have an explanation of the differences in connotation here (which aren't very clear cut), and point readers to anarchism with that as a caveat. RadicalSubversiv E 06:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Suggested Sets

I think we should look at this from a more historical perspective, starting with socialism. Remember that socialism is (even when imaginary and used for propaganda purposes) the emancipation of the working class and often other oppressed groups.

Early on there was a rift in the socialist movement between those who wanted the state to provide this from above and those who wanted the people to create it from below. The former was implemented after the Russian Revolution and others, and is generally referred to as communism or authoritarian socialism.

The latter was held onto by a varied group, but they are all opposed to the authoritarian aspect of the former. The opposite of authoritarian is libertarian. Now we ask how these groups justify the coexistence of liberty and the emancipation of the working class. Well, one way is through reformist governments with democratic socialism, held by many modern first world politicians, and people like George Orwell. Another way is through non-coercive direct action such as strikes, sabotage and boycotts, prevalent as the left-wing of anarchism. Both of these are subsets of libertarian socialism. Here are my proposed sets, it's just a matter of deciding which are linked pages and which are subheadings.

• Socialism
  • Communism/Maoism,Leninism, et al (authoritarian socialism)
  • Libertarian socialism
    • Left anarchism
    • Anarcho-syndicalism, etc
    • Democratic socialism

Anarchism was originally only a subset of socialism, but many modern capitalists also call for abolition of the state. As there is no difference in government, they are only politically different because they believe in different extra-governmental organisation. Traditional anarchists argue for workers to organise from the grassroots and make capitalism impossible by exercising choice through trade unionism, boycotts, etc. Anarcho-capitalists don't want that.

• Anarchism
  • Left anarchism/traditional anarchism (also under socialism)
  • Anarcho-syndicalism (also under socialism)
  • Anarcho-capitalism (also under libertarianism, capitalism)

Anarchism (absence of state) could be seen as extreme libertarianism by libertarian's general definition, however it is now skewed by the modern political climate, so some disambiguation is needed on the page. Maybe it should even be a disambiguation page. It originated in liberalist philosophy such as Kant's moral theories and subsequent writings on human rights, and Tom Paine and early American democracy. Libertarianism encompasses all systems focusing on freedom and rights, so is shared by parties such as the Greens, Libertarians, and Democratic Socialist Parties, by people such as Milton Friedman and Noam Chomsky. The key factor is democratic systems and/or levels of state control. Even governmental economic subsidies can be seen as "positive freedoms" (free education, etc) claimed by philosophers such as John Rawls.

• Libertarianism
  • Libertarianism (philosophy)
  • Libertarianism (modern/capitalist)
    • Anarcho-capitalism
  • Libertarian socialism
    • Left anarchism

So my conclusion is that libertarian socialism should be kept but only as a reference to historical political divides in for example the First and Second Internationals and an intermediate to democratic socialism and (left) anarchism. --Szorko 14:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is to be done

This page needs major reworking. There is far too much talk of Anarchism, when libertarian socialism is a group of ideologies and not any one particular. It includes ideologies such as Autonomist Marxism, that definitely deserve mention. I suggest we have two short sections in the beginning covering shared ideology within libertarian socialism, and then dive into an expansive list of libertarian socialist ideologies and their historical differences.--Che y Marijuana 22:59, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

A good portion of this article can be moved to anarcho-communism if you are afraid that there is too much focus on anarchism. Kev 23:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I disagree very strongly with this. Anarcho-communism is a specific flavor of anarchism -- libertarian socialism is a broader label. Most anarcho-syndicalists, for example, would identify as libertarian socialists but not as anarcho-communists. RadicalSubversiv E 23:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've got no strong feelings on this one way or the other. Kev 01:35, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See my comments above. I am unconvinced that anarchism and libertarian socialism are fundamentally different concepts, rather than usages with slightly different connotations. Autonomism is an interesting case, and one where we should proceed very cautiously, given Wikipedia:No original research. From my own limited knowledge, it's a rather distinctive political phenomenon which bears significant similarities to anarchism, but does not descend from it. RadicalSubversiv E 23:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, they aren't fundamentally different because one is a derivative of the other. It's like trying to prove that macs, and personal computers, are distinct. They aren't, one is a specific form of the other. That doesn't mean however, that the article on personal computers should redirect to the article on macs. Anyways, I don't think that those sections should all be moved to Anarcho-communism, but that article is pretty short, and could use the material, and this page does concentrate far too much on one specific flavour of libsoc. Anyways, so I reverted back, because I think whatever issues we have can be worked on, using these changes as a base.--Che y Marijuana 02:55, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that libertarian socialism is esssentially a synonym for anarchism, albeit one with slightly different connotations. [4] agrees with me, but I'm planning to consult more scholarly sources as soon as I can find the time. If you want the article to say that anarchism is a subset of libertarian socialism, you need to find some significant evidence in favor of that interpretation. In the interests of avoiding a revert war, I've added an accuracy dispute tag, but I'd very much like to see this resolved. RadicalSubversiv E 03:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, take a look at the changes I've made so far, and tell me if you consider it to be reasonable. Movements such as council communism and the like are firmly within the libertarian socialist tradition, and to exclude them would be a loss. I think that if we build this page on the assumption that anarchism is another word for libertarian socialism, then there's no point in not just redirecting it to that page. I however, don't see how it could be argued that autonomist marxism, council communism and de leonism are not also part of this tradition of liberatarian socialism. I will try to find some sources for this, but I think it's pretty clear.--Che y Marijuana 22:01, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think its worth noting that even the flagblackened.net page (Anarchist in orientation) linked higher up in this discussion counts Daniel Guerrin (Spelling?), a Libertarian Marxist, as a noteworthy Libertarian Socialist thinker. As such, I think the section on Marxism is in need of serious revision.--Virgin Molotov Cocktail

Changing neutral banner to cleanup banner

From what I can see on the talk page, the inane disputes over whether "libertarian socialism" exists ended a couple of months ago, but the article can still use some work. I think {{cleanup}} would be more appropriate.Dave 17:52, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Actually the accuracy dispute tag was added about 9 days ago, as the about discussion indicates. It seems to be a disagreement over whether or not "libertarian socialism" includes ideologies that are not anarchist. Regardless of the merit of various positions, I think the phrase is sometimes used to describe non-anarchist positions, and further there is nothing inherent in the words themselves that indicates anarchism, so I don't see the accuracy dispute tag as necessary. However, I think Radicalsubversiv feels strongly about this issue in a way that I don't, so he might not agree with removal of the tag. Kev 20:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I didn't read carefully enough. Dave 20:57, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Changing capitilization or hyphinating

What about changing the article so that "Libertarian socialism" reads "Libertarian Socialism" and "libertarian socialists" reads "Libertarian Socialists" since we are talking about a proper name. We might even add a hyphen so it reads "Libertarian-Socialism" and "Libertarian-Socialists". Good idea or no? I think this should help clear up misunderstandings. Cheers.. Patrick..

The hyphen doesn't belong, for sure. I did a spot check on google, and it doesn't look like it's capitalized very often. I'm not an expert, though. Dave (talk)

compromise on the somalia thing

I noticed the edit war, and I thought it might help if an outside party offered a compromise. The Somalia article seems to be relevant, and it's important that the critics' viewpoint is fully represented. This is an article about libertarian socialism, not for libertarian socialism. On the other hand, it's probably bad to let the criticism section get too bloated--the "criticism of libertarianism" section was 1/3 of the whole article at one point, which was clearly too much.

A good compromise would be to put in the link as evidence for the claim that "Typically, non-socialist libertarians believe that a capitalist economy is natural, rather than artificial, so it would naturally develop in the absence of regulating factors," but not to mention Somalia in the text.

If the link gets put in, it should link directly to the PDF file, not to the Google cache of it, which will quickly become a broken link.

I hope this helps,

Dave (talk) 21:08, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

This would be a good compromise if not for two things. First, any attempts to provide evidence for anarchist criticisms of anarcho-capitalism in the anarcho-capitalist article were removed, and in fact atm almost all of those criticisms have been removed to an entirely separte article, so a double standard is being used here. Second, the Somalia example is not on the surface evidence for their claim. It is highly disputed that Somalia is anarcho-capitalism, or any kind of anarchism, even some anarcho-capitalists deny this and the vast majority of anarchists believe it is more akin to feudalism given the large number of warlords claiming small state-like territories. I hardly think that a highly questionable piece of evidence that supports a different ideology is appropriate to put here. Kev 22:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article has nothing to do with what goes on in the anarcho-capitalism article. You know, you come across as very immature and petty. RJII 23:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As with several other talk pages, you seem totally uninterested in constructive dialogue. I've made my case, until you have something to add I will ignore you. Kev 01:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I tried.

RJII: I think you can find substantially better arguments supporting your claim than this Somalia article. I could probably find one from Lew Rockwell in about ten minutes if I tried. Kev is actually doing you a favor by making you put in better arguments

Kev: If an anarcho-capitalist rant on the subject were used as a source instead of the Somalia article, would that be acceptable?

Dave (talk) 04:17, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Why does it need a source when the vast majority of anarcho-capitalist claims in any article aren't sourced? No one is contesting that they believe this, let it lie. Kev 05:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DeLeonism and the Democratic Party link

First, I'm wondering if DeLeonism should be included as a libertarian socialist tendency? Advocating the necessity of a revolutionary political party in the class struggle seems to me, to go directly against the libertarian socialist critique of the state and state institutions. Also, I'm not sure if DeLeonism can be considered a historically important faction of libertarian socialism, or Marxism for that matter. While DeLeonism differs from Leninism, I wouldn't consider it within the libertarian socialist tradition.

Second, for most of the same reasons cited above, I'd like to see the Democratic Freedom Caucus link of the American Democratic Party removed.

What do people think?

Libertarianism proposal

There is a proposal at Talk:Libertarianism/Page move to move the article currently located at [[Libertarianism]] to Libertarianism (capitalist) and to have [[Libertarianism]] be a disambiguation page that links here, among other places. In the interests of fairness, I thought I should let the editors of this article know about it so they can vote. Dave (talk) 12:00, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Is libertarian socialism collectivist or individualist?

I was always under the impression that libertarian socialists claim to be individualists, which is why I edited the intro of the libertarianism article to remove the statement that only libertarian capitalism is individualist. I have been reverted, under the justification that libertarian socialists claim to be collectivists. So which is it? I need someone who knows more about libertarian socialism than me to explain if libertarian socialists consider themselves individualists or collectivists. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

From this article: " Both systems value the freedom of individuals; the difference is that libertarian socialism focuses on the collective economic freedom of all individuals in society, while right wing libertarianism concerns itself with the economic freedom of the individual in isolation, ignoring the effects his economic freedoms have on others." There you have it ..collectivism versus individualism. Also look at this: ""The Italian Federation considers the collective property of the products of labour as the necessary complement to the collectivist programme..." RJII 21:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, if that's the case, you're right. I'm still curious to hear what others have to say, though. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with RJII. Despite the ambiguities in the term libertarian socialism, (which libertarian socialists readily accept) it seems clear that any form of socialism relates to collective ownership of the means of production. In this sense, libertarian socialism is collectivist. Sunray 15:47, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Very well, I suppose you are correct. I'm sure there must be some libertarian socialists around here, and they'll pick up the discussion if they disagree. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism allows for the collective ownership of the means of production, land, etc. but bases all social arrangements on the autonomy of the individual. Unlike capitalist "individualists", libertarian socialists do not speak of a "right" to private ownership of property. This is why an anarchist can smash a corporate storefront without feeling as if she has offended anyone's rights. As an anarchist, I consider myself both an individualist and a collectivist for the reasons above. However, I, as others do, make a distinction between "private" and "personal" property: the former being property held solely as a means of profit-making, or deliberately withheld from others to take advantage of the existence of that withholding, etc. whereas the latter would be something an individual needs. The above user, RJII, has no desire to understand this distinction, which is admittedly nuanced, and will likely disagree with everything I have said despite having no strong personal views on the topic and less actual knowledge of it. In essence, the answer to your question depends upon your definition of the terms used. If you use the definitions of libertarian socialists, they are indeed both collectivist and individualist. --Tothebarricades 05:06, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Believe me, I know what private property is. As INDIVIDUALIST anarchist, Lysander Spooner says ""the principle of individual property ... says that each man has an absolute dominion, as against all other men, over the products and acquisitions of his own labor." Libertarian socialists are anti-private property. RJII 15:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Abolition of ALL private property over everything?

Here's yet another conflict involving me and RJII. Do all libertarian socialists want to abolish all private property over everything? RJII cites the Italian federation statement, but that's certainly not the absolute manifesto of all libertarian socialism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It is only one part of a broad category of movement that fall under libertarian socialism. RJ has been on a POV rampage lately and this is just a part of it. Kev 06:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Ignore this guy. He needs medical attention. RJII 14:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Yet another personal attack. Kev 04:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Minhea: I don't really understand the question. What is meant by "all" and "everything" in this context? As for RJII, he only reads what he thinks he can use to do battle with people he doesn't like, which seems to be his primary activity in life. --Tothebarricades 05:10, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Listen up bozo. If you can't handle intellectual challenges then you don't need to be here, and you don't need to resort to taking it to a personal level. You and Kev need to grow up. Your whining is not to going to accomplish anything. Get a clue. RJII 15:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I feel no need to avoid personal attacks since they seem to be your MO. --Tothebarricades 19:26, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

RJII wanted the introduction to say that libertarian socialism advocates the abolition of private property over "the product of labor". Since any object is the product of someone's labor, this ambiguous statement could be read to imply the elimination of private property over everything (i.e. no personal property at all). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Correct. They don't believe in personal property, in the ordinary sense of the term. They believe in USAGE of collective property, which means individuals are entitled to a house, food, etc. The essential difference is, if something is private property (another word for personal property, normally), then the individual has absolute dominion over it, not just mere usage. If one has absolute dominion, then he can continue accumulating it (thereby getting rich), keep others from using it, or sell it in the marketplace. So, naturally, as you would guess,libertarian socialists oppose markets. It goes hand in hand --no private property = no absolute control over personal possession = no market. Of course, there are little submovements where some may accept a little trading and bartering in small things (and therefore are are heretics), but as a general rule they are for the abolition of all private property --the abolition of the very concept of private property, one could say. See what I said below, as well. RJII 20:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

On a related note, you should watch the introduction of the libertarianism article. There have been attempts to reword it to say that "Libertarianism is a political philosophy whose highest value is defending and preserving the personal and economic liberty or freedoms of each and every individual equally." This reminds me of that famous quote by Anatole France, The law, in its majestic equality, prohibits rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges, begging in the streets, and stealing bread.-- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Be aware that equal liberty doens't mean equality in anything else but liberty. Right libertarianism indeed is for freedom of the individual, which necessarily includes the freedom to withhold from others what they may need to live. That's what separates it from collectivism. Individualist anarchist Lysander Spooner (American individualist anarchists favor private property) says "the principle of individual property ... says that each man has an absolute dominion, as against all other men, over the products and acquisitions of his own labor." Libertarian socialists, collectivists, believe that the produce of labor should be considered the property of the collective rather than the individual. That way, if someone is in need, he receives it --as in "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." In libertarian socialism, the individual has no ethical right to have absolute dominion over the produce of his labor (private property), and deprive the rest of society of that produce. The concept of private property is just not there. Everything is owned in collective. RJII 15:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Anti-capitalism - some fundamental questions.

I have some fundamental questions about libertarian socialism, which I will ask in terms of this statement from the anti-capitalism section.

To put it another way, capitalist (and right-libertarian) principles lead to the concentration of economic freedom in the hands of those who end up owning the most capital. Libertarian socialism aims to distribute freedom more equally amongst members of society. Both systems value the freedom of individuals; the difference is that libertarian socialism focuses on the collective economic freedom of all individuals in society, while right wing libertarianism concerns itself with the economic freedom of the individual in isolation, ignoring the effects his economic freedoms have on others.

1. What is the intended meaning of the term economic freedom in this statement? To me, economic freedom means freedom from anyone violating one's right to take part in the economy, trading capital, goods and services. Since everyone's freedom is equally protected from being so violated in a capitalistic free market, I don't see how the economic freedom is concentrated "in the hands of those who end up owning the most capital". Now, if something like the ability to purchase anything one may need or desire is what is meant by economic freedom, then, yes, the statement makes sense, but that would be an odd and disingenuous (not NPOV) use of the term economic freedom.
2. How can one claim that libertarian socialism values the freedom of individuals, when it clearly stands against private property, which is the cornerstone of individual freedom? (denying that private property is the cornerstone of individual freedom and proceeding with the following questions is fine with me)
3. How can one rightfully eat an apple, if he does not own the apple? Or does libertarian socialism allow for the concept of owning apples? If so, what else can be owned, how is ownership determined, and how is the line drawn between what individuals are free to own, and what they are restricted from owning? Who restricts them from owning property, by the way, and how is that enforced?
4. How can one pick an apple from a tree, if he does not own that tree (or has been given the right to pick from the tree by the rightful owner)? Or does everyone have the right to pick apples from any apple tree they encounter in a libertarian socialist system? Why would anyone work to cultivate and plant if he is denied the freedom to own the product of his work, and do with it what he wishes (eat it, sell it, feed it to his pigs, etc.).
5. Why would anyone plant an apple tree, if he does not own any land to plant it on? What claim does the planter/grower have to that tree that those who did not plant it also have, and how is that established and protected?

I have more, but that's it for now. Thanks. --Serge 01:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Serge, rather than giving you a full answer, which would probably seem complex to the unitiated, I would choose (rightly or wrongly) to answer you very slowly, incremently. It may take longer but hopefully it would result in more clarity.

Beginning with point #1. you wrote...."To me, economic freedom means freedom from anyone violating one's right to take part in the economy, trading capital, goods and services. Since everyone's freedom is equally protected from being so violated in a capitalistic free market, I don't see how the economic freedom is concentrated "in the hands of those who end up owning the most capital".

Early in the process of your argument libsocs would identify a problem because you seem to be implying that economic activity is reduced to the market, namely to "trading capital, goods, and services" whereas libsocs reject this tendency of the neoclassical orthodoxy to treat the sphere of production as a "black box." (As an aside, they would also recognize other values, a fundamental interdependence between human beings and dependence of human beings on ecosystems that would condition our definitions of economic freedom.) Libsocs believe that the roles, relationships and tasks undertaken by workers in the sphere of production fall within the scope of an appropriate definition of economic freedom.

In anticipation of a response, the argument that the formal right of contract is a sufficient assurance of economic freedom, substantively defined, is unconvincing, and surely does not eliminate the need/responsibility to examine the production process for its implications on the development of the powers of each individual. Often informal,un-negotiated contracts are typically "agreed to" under conditions of grossly disproportionate bargaining power. The choice for many wage-workers is either to accept the definitions of roles and terms defined by the employer at such-and-such a price per hour or day or to be without a job and thereby, stigmatized, and without means of life. This has been referred to as a "devil's choice." As libertarian socialist economist Robin Hahnel argues, in real capitalist economies, "not all people have, or could ever have an equal opportunity to become employers rather than employees...Moreover, who wil be employers, employees, or self-employed is determined for the most part neither randomly nor by people's preferences for self-managed versus other-directed work...One of the most profound insights provided by the simple corn model is that while it is true, in a sense, that employees "choose" alienated labour, they do not necessarily do so because they have a weaker desire for self-management than those they go work for. The distribution of wealth "tilts" the private enterprise playing field so that some will benefit more by becoming employers and others will benefit more by becoming employees independent of people's work preferences. In different terms, the poor have to "pay a price" to manage their own labouring capacities while the rich are rewarded for bossing others." (Hahnel- ABC's of Political Economy) The labour process, which in many cases constitutes the majority of an individual’s waking life, has an important impact upon the development of capabilities, therefore on the freedom of producers to exercise their productive capacities as they see fit. The orthodox definition of economic freedom is meaningless without a specification of property rights- the property rights system in capitalism distributes decision-making authority so as to provide the owner of the capitalist enterprise with despotic powers within the workplace and exclusive claim to the outputs of the producers. These are two aspects of capitalist social relations and property rights that libertarian socialists would do away with.

as for references on social ownership schemes under a libertarian socialist economy the most detailed of which I am aware is Pat Devine's book "Democracy and Economic Planning." User:BernardL

Bernard, I appreciate the slow and incremental approach for clarity. Sometimes that's the only way to come to terms.

You say, "early in the process of your argument...". What argument? I presented no argument. I simply asked a few questions, the first of which was asking what is meant by "economic freedom" in the anti-capitalism section of the article, and presented my own understanding of it in order to make clear where I was coming from. I did it for clarity, but it seems to have confused things, and derailed the focus from my fundamental question.

Over the last couple of days I've read your post several times. You say some interesting things, but there are no answers to any of my questions, mostly only a response to the definition that I provided, and providing some descriptions of your notion of economic freedom relative to mine, but not making clear what you mean exactly (at least not clear to me). Noting that "the roles, relationships and tasks undertaken by workers in the sphere of production fall within the scope of an appropriate definition of economic freedom", for example, is a move in the right direction, but it is not a definition.

For the sake of clarity, can you please provide the libertarian socialist definition of "economic freedom", without necessarily injecting arguments against "neoclassical orthodoxy" or anything else, and ideally without defining relative to definition held by opposing ideologies? In fact, I think providing this definition in the article itself would be very helpful to anyone trying to learn about libertarian socialism. "Libertarian socialists believe that economic freedom is _______________________ ... " Thanks! --Serge 16:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Serge- it is entirely normal for people to arrive at new understandings and conceptions by subjecting conventional conceptions to critical analysis and comparison. If I had merely provided you with the dictionary definition according to libsocs, I doubt it would have been any more helpful or clear than my attempt to provide some contextual insight. A stand-alone definition would not likely have answered your query concerning the reason why libsocs think that "economic freedom" is concentrated, which I think my reply went a long way towards answering. A socio-economic body of thought amounts to more than a collection of atomistic definitions, the interrelations between concepts, and the thought processes informing them are also very important for a clear understanding. For example, in libertarian socialism economic freedom is defined in relation to other core ethical values such as equity. It is very important for libsocs to provide an answer to the problem of resolving situations where freedoms conflict, as they often do. In any case there already is a definition of economic freedom in the article (although it may not speak for all libertarian socialists), it is found at the end of the criticisms section. For libertarian socialists institutions promote economic freedom when they advance the equal opportunity of everyone to participate in making economic decisions in proportion to the degree they are affected- this is known as the principle of self-management. Other libertarian socialists would use terms such as autonomy (in the original greek sense where individual and social autonomy were two sides of the same coin), or economic self-government referring to a similar although not identical principle. I would suggest that if you are serious about learning what libertarian socialists think then you should probably read some full articles first, leaving aside preconceptions, and then ask some questions later. In any case I will take a shot at your second question, once you express satisfaction with my explanation, or at least a wish to move on. BernardL

Vonnegut

I am a Libertarian Socialist, but I object on concept to the "criticisms" section, because it reads like an anarchist pamphlet. The example of Harrison Burgeon also annoys me. It's not very encyclopedic. It implies that Kurt Vonnegut is a right-libertarian, when in fact he's probably a Eugene V. Debs-style socialist.

This Should Be A Featured Article

This is a great article. As far as I can tell, it was removed from FA status because of the political sentiment of a singe, dedicated individual who seems to equate 'Socialism' with the Soviet Union.

Sam-- Socialism at it's most basic level is the democratic control of the 'means of production' (ie. factories, land, etc.) State control by itself is not socialism. For this reason, the Soviet Union was 'Socialist' in name alone. Real socialism is radically democratic. For an example of such a vision in practice, please read the Anarchism in Spain article. Harris0

I agree. CJames745 12:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

So do I, this is a really good article, how do you go about making it a featured article?Felix-felix 13:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Explicit Reference Section

What references were used for the creation of this article?

Expanded Political Roots Section

I have added the following:

That is, anarchism arose as a cross between socialism and liberalism, incorporating the anti-capitalist attitude of socialists and the anti-statist, or 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. At the same time be believed that goods should be traded in a free market (one not under constraint of government) where money was replaced with labor notes which held value in terms of labor rather than supply and demand. A free market is a liberal value.

For this reason libertarian socialism is synonymous with anarchism. However, libertarian socialism has developed a more political connotation while anarchism has grown into a much wider and more philosophical set of ideas. Since mainstream circles equate anarchism with opposition to the state, an idealogy known as anarcho-capitalism has come about which would not fall under the category of libertarian socialism. The phrase has therefore taken on a more leftist tone. In addition, some prefer the name because anarchy is often equated with chaos and can be a confusing word to use in political theory.

I think that more information wouldn't hurt in the political roots section, so long as it is concise. I felt it was important to clarify the relation of libertarian socialism to anarchism, despite the implicit equivalency between the words in this article. However I think a little more information about the origins of both anarchism and the term libertarian socialism is in order. CJames745 12:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I forgot about the history section. Perhaps we should change the name. Political roots has a distinctly historical sound. Maybe we should combine the two? Still I think what I wrote is better suited where it is CJames745 13:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

mutualism

I'd like to see some sources that claim mutualism is libertarian socialism. I find that really odd, since it's anti-collectivism in property. RJII 05:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of citations that one could offer regarding this. However, for me, the jury is still out deliberating on whether the description offered by the article accurately represents Proudhon's ideas or rather reflects a transposition of them by a modern interpreter. Here is an excerpt from a description of Proudhon's system by libertarian socialist economist Branko Horvat...

"Large productive properties are clearly incompatible with the system of reciprocal justice and ought to be abolished. But small private property is acceptable. When technical conditions required the employment of many workers, private property would be replaced by collective property of worker's associations. Workers would come together to set up enterprises on the basis of contracts stipulating mutual rights and obligations. The initial capital would be provided by the exchange bank." ... Horvat earlier notes that the Exchange Bank is the only central institution in Proudhon's society. One of the functions of the bank, presumably subject to the oversight of the federalist assembly of communes is to establish the labour value of commodities and issue appropriate receipts to producers. (Branko Horvat- The Political Economy of Socialism,118)

It seems that there were collectivizing tendencies in Proudhon, based on the criteria of mutualist reciprocity, although this means collectivization by worker's associations rather than the state as a whole. (I'm just trying to describe the system without passing judgements.)

In response to requests for citations concerning what is thought to be Proudhon's proto-libertarian socialism, some folks writing in the journal Democracy and Nature have certainly felt this way..."In the course of his analyses of the theories developed by representatives of these different movements, Proudhon, as early as the beginning of the 1840’s, started developing his own conception of a libertarian-socialist kind of federalism.[vi] This concept was ultimately founded on the basic idea, which subsequently became more apparent, that the necessary institutions had to be created in the economic, social but also in the governmental sector, to encourage human beings to develop, according to their abilities, into autonomous individuals, as well as into responsible and fully committed citizens ." see http://www.democracynature.org/dn/vol6/roemheld_proudhon.htm, http://www.democracynature.org/dn/vol6/hilmer_proudhon.htm,http://www.democracynature.org/dn/vol6/takis_proudhon.htm

Of course one can cite several important libertarian socialists who are sharply critical of his specific ideas for institutions and consider them something of an embarassment. I think the appointment that the article affords to him as "father" of the anarchist/libertarian socialist movement is an overstatement, and not a little ironic considering anarchism's supposedly anti-authoritarian disposition. BernardL 14:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

third party resoultion?

The debate on whether this should be a featured article or deleted is pretty intense. I don't pretend to be an administrator and I admit to being a libertarian socialist but you may want to get a third party in here to help rsolve this debate once and for all before it gets any worse.--Acebrock 18:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where to look to find the discussion. BernardL 22:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

*Very* absurd thing

"While still socialist, mutualism is the most right-wing branch of libertarian socialism. [2]"

This is a very absurd thing. Who put it? A right-libertarian? This is very relative of point of view of each person. Why not some person can think that individualist anarchist is left-wing branch of socialism, for example?

I change it. Now it says: "While still socialist, mutualism is the most individualist branch of libertarian socialism". This is ***more*** neutral.

MCC deletion

Hi, elroble@planet-save.com is here. I decided to delete the MCC line and image, because I think they don't belong in a Libertarian Socialist article. I found it odd when I saw it. Sure the MCC deserves its own article in Wikipedia, which it already has, but the MCC is now much more like a multinational corporation (see the criticisms, which I did not write, in the MCC article), including offshoring production to China, exploiting workers who are not owners in their supermarkets, asking for 12000 euros to each worker who wants to become an owner and really being efficient and well-managed from a capitalistic point of view (it is a case study in Spanish business schools, as if it were The Coca-Cola company) but not libertarian socialist at all. The MCC has never been libertarian socialist. Do you think that something founded by a priest under a fascist dictatorship is libertarian socialist?

comments about this paragraph

"For this reason it is accurate to say that libertarian socialists favor the labor theory of value over the subjective theory of value. This means that, to an anarchist, objects have a value associated with them based upon the amount of labor put in to them. As such, the only way profit can be produced is by paying workers less than this value or by charging consumers more than this value. Capitalists, on the other hand, believe that an object's value is determined by supply and demand. Despite this preference, not all libertarian socialists would argue that the labor theory is any more concrete than the subjective theory, simply that it is more fair."

I think it's a little too generalizing about what libertarian socialists are supposed to think. It counterposes a "labour theory of value" to a "subjective theory of value" when it seems more logical to contrast 1. an "objective theory of value", a category that includes the LTV, plus others like those of Sraffa and Veblen, 2. an "intersubjective theory of value" and 3. a subjective theory of value. I've also noticed that some libertarian socialist economists do not think that the LTV and certain marginalist insights are incompatible, and one Japanese anarchist philosopher argues persuasively that Marx consciously took a transcritical position between Ricardo's LTV and Bailey's STV. Also the paragraph omits the fact, noted by Marx against Lasalle, that labour is not the sole source of value, nature itself is a source of value; therefore it's not quite true to argue that profit only comes from under-reward of the worker's contribution. A society that ignores the contribution of nature is bound to exploit it. BernardL 23:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The labor theory of value can be trivially proven incorrect. Why would libertarian socialists be said to favor an incorrect theory? Why not say outright that libertarian socialists are crackpots rather than simply implying it? RussNelson 05:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Mutualism redux

I've restored the section on mutualism, as I can find no evidence of consensus against it. The recent removal seems to have been a reaction to the addition of a short bit on agorism. Both An Anarchist FAQ and the Mutualist FAQ consider mutualists socialists. Libertatia 22:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Worked on Criticisms

I added a bit to the criticisms section, and broke it up for easier reading. Salvor Hardin 04:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)