Jump to content

Talk:Libertarian socialism/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Insurrectionary anarchism

It seems to me that there is too much crammed into this article that could be reduced. In particular, Insurrectionary anarchism is mentioned 27 times in the article, yet few insurrectionary anarchists describe themselves as libertarian socialists. The anarchist communist section concludes "Anarcho-communist currents include platformism and insurrectionary anarchism." Do we then need a whole sub-section on each of these, or can readers not just follow the links? If they remain, can't they become sub-sections within the anarchist communist section, rather than be included in the very baggy "Other tendencies" section? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Insurrectionary anarchism and platformism are not classical anarchist schools of thought and so they cannot go in that section. they are post-classical and so they belong where they are.--Eduen (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think a section listing fictional novels and stories based around, or that use any form of anarchy as part of the plot, would be relevant for this section. For instance, Ursula K. Le Guin's novel, The Dispossessed would be great start. The story provides a descriptive work of how anarchist communism might function. I could write a blip, but I don't want to waste the time if some of you think it won't contribute to the page. I argue that it would contribute by providing a list of fictional works of literature that describe what a functioning anarchist community might look like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.10.216 (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC) G K Adamson (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Civil libertarianism

A section on this I think is necessary since libertarianism is not reducible to economic issues and since libertarian socialists have been pioneering campaigners for individual freedoms. It means mainly libertarian socialist positions on issues such as sexual freedom, drugs, religious and church influence, freedom of press and of speech, freethought, women´s and LGBTI people rights. The main support for this and for those uninformed about this are articles already available in wikipedia such as anarchism and issues of love and sex, anarchism and education, individualist anarchism, anarcha-feminism and queer anarchism.

My proposal is the following:

=== Civil libertarianism and personal liberties ===
Main articles: Free love, Anarchism and issues related to love and sex, Anarchism and religion, Anarcha-feminism, Anarchism and education, and Queer anarchism

Libertarian socialists have been strong advocates and activists of civil liberties that provide an individual specific rights such as the freedom in issues of love and sex (free love) and of thought and concience (freethought). In this activism they have clashed with state and religious institutions which have limited such rights. Anarchism has been an important advocate of free love since its birth. Later a strong tendency of free love appeared alongside anarcha-feminism and advocacy of LGBT rights. In recent times anarchism has also voiced opinions and taken action around certain sex related subjects such as pornography, BDSM and the sex industry.

Anarcha-feminism developed as a synthesis of radical feminism and anarchism that views patriarchy (male domination over women) as a fundamental manifestation of compulsory government. It was inspired by the late 19th century writings of early feminist anarchists such as Lucy Parsons, Emma Goldman, Voltairine de Cleyre, and Dora Marsden. Anarcha-feminists, like other radical feminists, criticise and advocate the abolition of traditional conceptions of family, education and gender roles. Anarchists also took a pioneering interest in issues related to LGBTI persons. An important current within anarchism is free love.[1] Free love advocates sometimes traced their roots back to the early anarchist Josiah Warren and to experimental communities, viewed sexual freedom as a clear, direct expression of an individual's self-ownership. Free love particularly stressed women's rights since most sexual laws discriminated against women: for example, marriage laws and anti-birth control measures.[2]

Anarchists have traditionally been skeptical of and opposed to organized religion[3]. Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or other dogmas.[4][5][6] The cognitive application of freethought is known as "freethinking," and practitioners of freethought are known as "freethinkers."[4][7]In the United States "freethought was a basically anti-christian, anti-clerical movement, whose purpose was to make the individual politically and spiritually free to decide for himself on religious matters. A number of contributors to Liberty (anarchist publication) were prominent figures in both freethought and anarchism. The individualist anarchist George MacDonald was a co-editor of Freethought and, for a time, The Truth Seeker. E.C. Walker was co-editor of the excellent free-thought / free love journal Lucifer, the Light-Bearer".[8] In 1901, Catalan anarchist and free-thinker Francesc Ferrer i Guàrdia established "modern" or progressive schools in Barcelona in defiance of an educational system controlled by the Catholic Church.[9] The schools' stated goal was to "educate the working class in a rational, secular and non-coercive setting". Fiercely anti-clerical, Ferrer believed in "freedom in education", education free from the authority of church and state.[10]

So there is my proposal. I leave it here for suggestions and criticisms. I suggest a picture of Emma Goldman for this section who was an anarcha-femminist who campaigned strongly for free love, birth control access and freethought. And as far as the marxist side of libertarian socialism there is the case of left communist Sylvia Pankhurst who was a prominent UK feminist.--Eduen (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, though I don't have the expertise to evaluate it in detail. North8000 (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Libertarian socialism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Libertarian socialism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named " Alain Pengam":

Reference named "bbc":

  • From Anarchism: "Anarchism", BBC Radio 4 program, In Our Time, Thursday 7 December 2006. Hosted by Melvyn Bragg of the BBC, with John Keane, Professor of Politics at University of Westminster, Ruth Kinna, Senior Lecturer in Politics at Loughborough University, and Peter Marshall, philosopher and historian.
  • From Socialism: "South America's leftward sweep". BBC News. 2005-03-02. Retrieved 2011-10-30.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

not to be disruptive

Not to be disruptive but this entire categorization flies in the face of contemporary understandings and terms and IMHO ought to be scrapped before it starts looking like the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or the modern philosophy curriculum. A good starting place for this would be Harry Laidler's old Social-Economic Movements or G D H Cole's History of Socialist Thought or even Marx and Engel's own categories in the Communist Manifesto — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.247.35 (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

agreed, i fail to see how liberty and having your means of production seized go together. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Darkstar1st . Maybe you should look for another place where you can speak your mind such as an internet forum. As far as this place this particular view of yours is out of place here since it doesn´t address this article or the issues raised by the person who wrote before you (but you nevertheless decided to place you views in this particular section).--Eduen (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Eduen, your comment belongs on my talk page and is in violation of WP:agf. i see you joined us in 2009, welcome friend. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Eduen. TFD (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirected from "Progressive Libertarianism"

Does anyone know why there is a redirect to this article from "Progressive Libertarianism"? While some people may equate the term progressive with liberal, A) it doesn't equate to socialist and B) the article doesn't use the term Progressive Libertarian[ism] or appear to reference the term in any context (perhaps it did historically). I think the redirect should be removed; thoughts? Cowb0y (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Cowb0y. I really doubt whoever created that "article" can support this "progressive libertarianism" being the same as libertarian socialism. I don´t know if "progressive libertarianism" exists as a political concept in academic and political discourse. Personally I have never heard it said in libertarian socialist contexts. I think the "article" progressive libertarianism should be deleted then unless someone can bring good support for it.--Eduen (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
agree, combining terms is often folly, ex: libertarian socialist. the less educated think libertarian means the government should stay out of my personal and professional life as long as i am not harming others, socialist means the government will take anything i earn more than what my friends has, and give it to him. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Darkstar1st. I suggest you start a blog in order to speak your mind.--Eduen (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism and the state

I suggest a sentence in the introduction similar to this idea: "Libertarian socialists have most often advocated a stateless society but nevertheless there exists some views which argue some degree of compatibility of libertarian socialism with the state or specific transitional relations with it in the path towards libertarian socialism."--Eduen (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Geez...another Chomsky wet-dream article wildly bloated out over the years. The naive waif could almost be excused for thinking the disingenuous tripe respectable. -- "Libertarian-socialism" consists of 100% socialism and 0% liberty; and Chomsky is a moldy communist hack who feverishly assisted Soviet policy for the entire Cold War. One of these future centuries, people will look back upon the near-infinite listing of front-groups, fellow-travelers and useful-idiots still encrusting tax-funded acanemia like barnacles two decades after the fall of the wall, and laugh themselves silly.--Mike18xx (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I see here another case of an irrelevant opinion as far as what is the purpose of this space within this encyclopedia. Mike18xx, blogs and many internet forums exist out there to serve your purposes better.--Eduen (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

On the proposed artificial market merger

It's (apparently) been 2 months since there was a decision for the merger (with "artificial market"). The merger still hasn't happened. I'm left to infer that all those who supported the merger don't actually care about it. Perhaps some of those (assuming there are some) who opposed it actually do care. I bring this up because I oppose the merger and I care about it. I'm fine with abiding by the decision, but at what point do we recognize that there's no tangible support for the merger? Since a decision on matters such as these can always be overturned, I'm wondering if it's a good time to re-open the debate. If someone wants a merger, they should just do it. Byelf2007 (talk) 5 August 2012

It happens a lot (see this. I am going to work my way through the old ones. AFD is kind of binding unfortnatley (always WP:DRV). I think people just think hey that should be merged and them move on. It would be better if you or someone familiar with the topic does it. AIRcorn (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

This article reads like a work of original research against WP:OR. Essentially it is a synthesis of articles to assert a new position. In fact 'Libertarian Socialism' isnt mentioned in ANY of the sources. I support deletion, or a merger with Dr Chomsky's entry.--Phazakerleytalk 22:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Is Femke Halsema a libertarian socialist?

The article mentions Femke Halsema as an example of a contemporary libertarian socialist politician. I think that is not correct. She may perhaps be "libertarian", but she is not a socialist. When, in 2004, she pronounced the GreenLeft party to be "left-liberal" (and not "libertarian"), she broke with the socialist roots of the party, at the time already no longer reflected in its program, although still embraced by many members. Lambert Meertens (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

What evidence is there that all libertarian socialists are social anarchists? Are there no libertarian socialists who are not social anarchists?

The intro of the article claims that all libertarian socialists are social anarchists. The idea that every libertarian socialist is a social anarchist a very sweeping claim that requires evidence to justify it - including evidence that it is exclusively used by social anarchists and not other groups.--R-41 (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point. The term "social anarchism" in a big part emerged in opposition to individualist anarchism. Nevetheless, as this article shows, individualist anarchists is also a form of socialism and as such of libertarian socialism but of course individualist anarchism will object to the term "social anarchism" or even might refuse to use it to refer to their position. I will check again the references and so maybe we should remove this affirmation.--Eduen (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

did someone copy and paste this from uncyclopedia?

Or has wikipedia really fallen this far? Whatzinaname (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

yes. I agree this is a troll.--Eduen (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Does somebody...

... know the difference between anarchist communism and libertarian socialism? By the leads of the respective articles, they appear to be more or less the same thing... Againme (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Positions unclear, unanswered questions

Certain things in this article are ambiguous. One glaring example of an unanswered question is: would the various "libertarian municipalities" be completely free from any outside authority, and therefore free to reject socialism in favor of capitalism, as at least some of them would if free to do so? If not, what outside authority would prevent them from doing so?

And if so, would socialist and non-socialist "libertarian municipalities" peacefully co-exist, or trade with one another?

Shouldn't this article include such important details, even if there is disagreement on them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.67.42 (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Any ambiguity would be in the theory not how it is presented. But the issue would not come up in their theory because capitalism can only exist with a coercive state. TFD (talk) 06:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

A number of passages in this article strike me as being far from neutral. A few edits could fix it without changing the overall description, but passages like this just strike me as.. biased. (And possibly a strawman)

"Whereas capitalist (and right-libertarian) principles concentrate economic power in the hands of those who own the most capital, libertarian socialism aims to distribute power, and thus freedom, more equally amongst members of society. A key difference between libertarian socialism and capitalist libertarianism is that advocates of the latter generally believe that one's degree of freedom is affected by one's economic and social status, whereas advocates of the former focus on freedom of choice."

(18 November 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.149.117.247 (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed i don't detect aneything neutral in this entire page it needs a complete redo 98.250.4.115 (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

How is it not 'neutral' to just say that, yes, capitalism (hence US faux-'Libertarianism' ) concentrates capital into relatively few hands? That's just a description of the system without any brakes on it. 'Neutrality' has nothing to do with it. It's just a description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.99.177 (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It is completely prejudicial to say that one system distributes freedom better. Capital is not necessarily power (for instance, the President of the United States is commonly called the most powerful person in the free world, but there are much richer people). People can be free without economic power. It is not remotely logical to say that no one has ever willingly given up economic power to have more free time. I understand people may have strong opinions, but a factual encyclopaedia is not the best place for views on what constitutes what one considers "real" or "faux" libertarianism. That leads to issues of neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwawaygull (talk • contribs) 05:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This statement is not neutral, here is why: Capitalism does not seek to distribute "power" to any one particular person or one particular body whatsoever in any particular amount. However financial power comes about in a Capitalist society is 100% an emergent phenomenon. It is not sanctioned through the use of force, as is the case with government redistribution of wealth, rather in order for a Capitalist to gain monetary power, he must create a product good enough that other people will voluntarily choose to buy it, repeatedly, again and again. In this case, Capital monetary, or buying power, is not created through force but rather through pure voluntary association. In short, Capitalism does not seek to give power to those with the most capital. On the contrary, capitalism by its very nature insists that the those with the most capital are not guaranteed their high-place, but that someone else with a great idea can come along and siphon all their business by creating a better product than their competition. Because of the above mentioned reasons, it should be plain why it's simply ridiculous and not neutral at all to say that capitalism tries to focus power into the hands of those with the most capital. Teleohapsis (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Condensing

I have suggested the following changes to the page to condense it

  • Intro - remove sometimes called" ". as there is a list of varieties at the end of the intro.
  • delete quote from Harry Cleaver at end of first section as it is quite long and adds little

civil liberties

  • delete references to freethinking in section on civil liberties as Libertarian socialists may or may not be against organized religion. shorten section on Christian anarchism for same reason

political roots

  • Godwin may be a forerunner of anarchist individualism but was he a socialist. did he want to socialize capital ?
  • under Marxism remove section on Chinese Communism as it is not relevant to the chapter on roots of libertarian socialism.

notable tendencies

  • Ghandhism - could be shortened - leaving references to ghandhi's views on decentralisation
  • guild socialism - shorten particularly references to medieval roots
  • remove the bullpoint references to individual Platformist groups
  • insurrectionary anarchism - section repeats sections on anarchism and on violence
  • Johnson forest tendency - seem unlikely libertarians. they were more concerned with freedom than orthodox Trotskyists. grounds for inclusion doubtful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.207.188 (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
agreed, this page is too long by half. 200+ sources is a sign of possible pov issues. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Freethought does not mean atheism or a project to exterminate all religion. Freethought means a call for judgement to follow reason and evidence which is something religious people can and also practice. Religious tendencies from Aquinas Scholasticism to protestantism and liberal christianism have been advocating various degrees of rationalism and conciliation of religion and science. Also the Islamic Golden Age period was an important period for scientific advance while the western christian world was in the so called "Dark Ages (historiography)". Also most if not all major Renaissance humanism intellectuals stayed being christians while paving the way for scientific thought and rationalism and critizicing scholastic thought. Also the major trend within enlightenment thought was not atheism (there were some atheists like Baron d'Holbach and Diderot) but deism. Still religious libertarian socialists, at least strongly comitted ones, will hardly be a majoritarian current within anarchism and libertarian marxist current, traditions who characterize themselves historically by criticism of religion as a whole.
  • William Godwin was seen a an almost communist by Peter Kropotkin himself. In his famous intro to the entry on the Encyclopedia Britannica Kropotkin says of Godwin "Speaking of property, he stated that the rights of every one ‘to every substance capable of contributing to the benefit of a human being’ must be regulated by justice alone: the substance must go ‘to him who most wants it’. His conclusion was communism. Godwin, however, had not the courage to maintain his opinions. He entirely rewrote later on his chapter on property and mitigated his communist views in the second edition of Political Justice (8vo, 1796). "[1]. In general Godwin is considered an individualist anarchist and so his mentions of economics are similar to the views of mutualists and for this reason economic liberal thought almost never mentions him as an antecedent of them.
  • On chinese left communism, it is clear that it belongs there. Maybe this section should not be thought of as just being "roots".
  • On the Johnson Forest Tendency i will have to say that it is linked to the highly libertarian and workers control oriented work Facing Reality. Anyway, i will not defend this inclusion too strongly.
  • It will be better if this user decides to establish a wikipedia account if he cares in an important way about this article.
  • To user Darkstar1st i suggest stating his particular criticisms more clearly here. Saying "i agree" to something someone else said is not enough to support a case. In fact most of what the other user is talking about were issues of particular mentions of movements within the article. Hardly an argument of the structure of the article as a whole.--Eduen (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Needs work

I love the idea of this article, but it desperately needs work. Right now it reads like a data dump about various varieties of socialist and anarchist thinking; it needs to clearly and succinctly answer the question "what is libertarian socialism", which is something I still don't know.

The first sentence states: "Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism, left-libertarianism and socialist libertarianism).." If this sentence is true, and the phrase "libertarian socialism" is a synonym for "social anarchism" and "left-libertarianism," then this article should simply be a redirect to one of those articles. The only reason to have this article is if the term "libertarian socialism" is not a synonym for these. So, I changed social anarchism and left-libertarianism to "related concepts"-- but if they are in fact synonums, then the articles should be merged. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

agreed, i second merging with existing articles. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I can judge user´s Skepticalgiraffe proposals for editions in this article to be in good faith. Despite that i can only say that this user only took out things and removed others without bringing any reference support on general works on libertarian socialism so as to support his changes. On the other hand this user removed well sourced material. I am ready to discuss the proposals of user Skepticalgiraffe for this article. As far as the only thing that user Skepticalgiraffe talked about here about his/her edits i can say that it will be a very strange decision to merge complex articles with subjects with a history of their own and with their own complexities in one article. I suggest user Skepticalgiraffe to inform herself/himself better about left libertarianism, social anarchism and libertarian socialism as different concepts as they are described in their own wikipedia articles in order to have more information on the significant diferences between them. In more general terms, since the edits that this user are very big and affect in a large form the structure and the introduction to this article, i suggest that user to take a slower approach and to take some time to debate his proposals in this talk section before proceeding.--Eduen (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Checking back again the intervention in this space of user Skepticalgiraffe, i notice this particular sentence which is very worring to me. "it needs to clearly and succinctly answer the question "what is libertarian socialism", which is something I still don't know." I guess i can only suggest that user to check some outside reliable sources and inform himself/herself better about the subject in discussion here before trying to edit things in this article. The current definition in the first sentence of this article in very clear in stating that libertarian socialism is a group of anti-authoritarian socialist philosophies and views. Perhaps after checking that basic bibliography that user can bring some of the things that he/she has found that could be useful in improving this article.--Eduen (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I removed well-sourced material which had no citations to show any relationship to the topic, libertarian socialism. I can add material to the article which is very well sourced explaining the life cycle of the Monarch butterfly, too, but the mere fact that it is well-sourced does not mean it should be in this article. Show a relationship to the topic, or cut it.
I agree with the statement that it is "a very strange decision to merge complex articles with subjects with a history of their own and with their own complexities in one article." Other subjects only tangentially related to the topic of this article should have their own article.Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you could give us examples of affirmations or information given in this article that you find that do not have relationships with libertarian socialism. Let´s discuss it that way.--Eduen (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The stuff I cut that you reverted. All of it.
Let's start with this one:

Green anarchism, or ecoanarchism, is a school of thought within anarchism which puts a particular emphasis on environmental issues. An important early influence was the thought of the American anarchist Henry David Thoreau and his book Walden,[85] as well as Leo Tolstoy[86] and Elisee Reclus.[87][88] In the late 19th century there emerged anarcho-naturism as the fusion of anarchism and naturist philosophies within individualist anarchist circles in France, Spain, Cuba[89] and Portugal.[85][86] Important contemporary currents are anarcho-primitivism and social ecology.[90]

This has no citations given that show any relationship to the topic, libertarian socialism. This article is not a primer on different varieties of anarchism. Unless these authors specifically identify as libertarian socialists, this should moved to the article "Varieties of Anarchism". Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
--Given no response to this in ten days, I assume you have no objection to cutting this material, so I deleted it. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Now, with that done. "examples of affirmations or information given in this article that you find that do not have relationships with libertarian socialism." OK, how about this one:

In the People's Republic of China (PRC) since 1967, the terms Ultra-Left and left communist refers to political theory and practice self-defined as further "left" than that of the central Maoist leaders at the height of the GPCR ("Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution"). The terms are also used retroactively to describe some early 20th-century Chinese anarchist orientations. As a slur, the Communist Party of China (CPC) has used the term "ultra-left" more broadly to denounce any orientation it considers further "left" than the party line. According to the latter usage, in 1978 the CPC Central Committee denounced as "ultra-left" the line of Mao Zedong from 1956 until his death in 1976. "Ultra-Left" refers to those GPCR rebel positions that diverged from the central Maoist line by identifying an antagonistic contradiction between the CPC-PRC party-state itself and the masses of workers and "peasants"[115] conceived as a single proletarian class divorced from any meaningful control over production or distribution. Whereas the central Maoist line maintained that the masses controlled the means of production through the Party's mediation, the Ultra-Left argued that the objective interests of bureaucrats were structurally determined by the centralist state-form in direct opposition to the objective interests of the masses, regardless of however "red" a given bureaucrat's "thought" might be. Whereas the central Maoist leaders encouraged the masses to criticize reactionary "ideas" and "habits" among the alleged 5% of bad cadres, giving them a chance to "turn over a new leaf" after they had undergone "thought reform", the Ultra-Left argued that "cultural revolution" had to give way to "political revolution" – "in which one class overthrows another class".[116][117]

Can you find any citations relating this to liberatarian socialism? It does mention- briefly- the word "anarchism," but if you contend that any mention of anarchism is relevant to an article on libertarian socialism, then we should just merge this article into anarchy. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Next, following that, what about the section "Violent and non-violent means"? This section is a discussion about the advocacy of violence within various fractions of the anarchism movement. Is there any reason this is particularly relevant to libertarian socialism? This section has five references: none of which mention libertarian socialism even incidentally. This material should be moved in its entirely to the Anarchism and violence article, and deleted from this one.

These sections I've been calling out are, in general, symptomatic of the main problem with the article: it very badly lacks focus. It's way too long, and the reason it's too long is that it is a data dump on material not clearly relevant to the subject. In every place where there is a "see main article here" note in this article, the text here should be critically examined to see whether it is relevant here in the first place. This article should not be a history and philosophy of anarchism; people who want to see that will go to the anarchism article, not here. It should cover the topic-- libertarian socialism-- and for other topics, should send the reader to the appropriate page. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Once again: Change or Merge.

"Eduen" deleted a bunch of changes without any substantive comment more detailed than saying we need to discuss this, but without actually discussing anything. The first sentence states the following: "Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[1][2] left-libertarianism[3][4] and socialist libertarianism[5])..." If this sentence is correct, then this article should be deleted and the text merged into the articles social anarchism, left-libertarianism and socialist libertarianism (which themselves should be merged, since according to the article these are all words that refer to the same thing, and thus should the same article.) Please address the problem' Is this sentence correct? Then the article should be merged. Is it incorrect? Then the sentence needs to be rewritten. One of the other. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

a murky term at best, more like an idea for an ideology with few if any actual leaders, candidates, or parties. [[2]] Darkstar1st (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I revised the lede to rephrase the statement that these four political philosophies were different words for the same thing, and moved the laundry-list of "political philosophies and movements" that are alleged to be "described as libertarian socialist" to a separate subheading. By the way, it would be helpful if a reference could be found for each of these fifteen items actually is "commonly described as libertarian socialist." Skepticalgiraffe

However, it is still not clear to me that this article would not be better merged into one of these other articles. If this article cannot clearly and succinctly explain in what way libertarian socialism is different from these other philosophies, it is not clear that this article is anything other than a random assortment of anecdotes about anarchism. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

User Skepticalgiraffe

As it has become clear to me now user Skepticalgiraffe can now be accused of two things as far as his edits. 1)Considering statements like this "If this article cannot clearly and succinctly explain in what way libertarian socialism is different from these other philosophies, it is not clear that this article is anything other than a random assortment of anecdotes about anarchism". I can say that user Skepticalgiraffe clearly has no good previous knowledge of the subject of this article. As such he cannot be taken seriously as an expert or something like that on the subject. But on top his arrogance goes as far as deleting large quantities of well sourced affirmations given in this article. 2) he has failed even to read the Overview section of the article as well as reliable general works specific on libertarian socialism such as Libertarian Socialism: Politics in Black and Red Edited By Alex Prichard, Ruth Kinna, Saku Pinta and Dave Berry. Palgrave Macmillan, December 2012. Also the large discussion on libertarian socialism which has achieved a strong well discussed consensus also outside this particular article in the libertarianism article which had an important amount of participants in it and all coming with strong relaiable sources.

As such i can only say his editions border on mere vandalism. But also his failings to understand basic logical set theory are very strange. An example of this is how he cannot understand that green anarchism will be logically a form of libertarian socialism since anarchism is a tendency within libertarian socialism. But this is even more clear in the fact that perhaps the most prominent green anarchist of the previous century, Murray Bookchin, also self described himself as both an anarchist and a libertarian socialist. From what i have seen here though, i frankly cannot expect user Skepticalgiraffe to know about Murray Bookchin at all.

Another issue has to be discussed. User Skepticalgiraffe said: "If this sentence is true, and the phrase "libertarian socialism" is a synonym for "social anarchism" and "left-libertarianism," then this article should simply be a redirect to one of those articles. The only reason to have this article is if the term "libertarian socialism" is not a synonym for these." The sentence states that libertarian socialism is "ALSO SOMETIMES CALLED" those other things but it does not say it is a synonym of those things or that it is the same thing. These three terms have intersecting histories but they do not share the same conceptual historical evolution and taxonomic problems of this sort are common when dealing with political positions from a world scale point of view. What i can appreciate from the comentaries here of user Skepticalgiraffe is that we could improve this article perhaps by having a small discussion on the etymology and/or history of use of the term "libertarian socialism" right after the introduction of the article.--Eduen (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Your argument here seems to be "even thought here is no evidence anywhere in the article to show that these sections seem to be relevant, I assert that they are relevant because I say so."
don't assert it, cite it. You keep saying "this is obvious, this you should know this, this should be logical." Wrong. If it's not cited, it shouldn't be in the article.
This article is important. It should be well written. It is not. It is full of cruft that is not cited in any way as being relevant to the subject. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
In order to keep this conversation productive i suggest you that you point out to specific points in the text of this article here where you find that there are important issues to be dealt with. Otherwise if you just keep repeating the same very general argument over and over, it is hard to deal with your concerns inside the forms of discussion within which Wikipedia acts. This is mainly reliable sources and affirmations supported on them. As such i think i will revert your editions and hopefully we can direct this conversation to discussion of specific sections of the text and to the reliability of sources brought here which support parts of the text or who do not. Also i remind you that wikipedia works under a policy of consensus. Not on the capacity to sustain edit wars.--Eduen (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
since you reverted the changes he made, you already know his points. it appears there is no consensus to keep your edit [3] and at least two suggesting you undo your revert. the previous version was by far the more concise, elegant prose than the alphabet soup of pondering the intersection of 30 ideologies in the lede. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the support, Darkstar1st. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Libertarian socialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Libertarian socialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Chomsky: "I'm an anarchist, not a libertarian" libertarianism != anarchism

Chomsky has made a clear distinction between anarchism and libertarianism in this interview: http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/noam-chomsky-kind-anarchism-i-believe-and-whats-wrong-libertarians

He's also stated that he is an anarchist, and that he beliefs libertarianism is wrong.

I'm surprised that he is being called a "libertarian socialist" in this Wikipedia article. How come? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viridium (talk • contribs) 02:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Libertarian socialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Libertarian socialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

[4] @Eduen, this listing is far beyond excessive. I didn't see a single link worth keeping. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I don´t know from what point of view you are thinking all these links are bad. Maybe you can explain this better or point to specific problematic links and why they are problematic. I guess it would be reasonable to take those who are broken or no longer active but you cannot just delete an entire section.--Eduen (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
These links are holdouts from early Wikipedia—we don't keep sections of links to primary source treatises, random hobbyist websites, amateur histories. The EL section is for (at most a handful of) links that provide unique resources outside the scope of what we would either use as a source or provide as an encyclopedia. Not to mention that the section has been tagged for cleanup for two years... You want to keep these? How about starting with a single source from the dozens that you feel provides a resource in accordance with the aforementioned & linked External links guidelines? czar 16:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the best long term way to handle it, but the external links area of this article contains an immense amount of useful and relevant info and represents a large investment of time and effort in development. IMO it should not be simply deleted. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree withe North8000; this should definitely not deleted in one go. It should be cleaned and maybe trimmed. I can certainly see links worth keeping among it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Again, does anyone care to name even a few of these links worth keeping? czar 03:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
A bit hard to tell when you've removed them all. I'm pasting them here so people can check them and see.

===Libertarian socialist general resources===

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

− −

Introductory articles

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

− −

Libertarian socialist websites

−

  • The Red Menace Archive of The Red Menace, published by the Libertarian Socialist Collective

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

  • The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Anarchism|p0038x9t}}.

−

−

−

−

− −

Libertarian socialist history

−

−

−

−

−

− −

Film

− See List of films dealing with Anarchism for a list of nonfiction and fiction films dealing with anarchist movements both historical and contemporary.

−

BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

IMO we should put them all back and then delete one or a few at a time giving reasons for doing so. North8000 (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@North8000: Unfortunately, we work the other way around. Links should only be included if there is reason to do so. A quick scan through this list shows quite some stuff that is already discussed in this massive article (347 references, >30 item bibliography), and I cannot imagine that they add to the understanding of the subject at hand. I can agree they are useful in themselves, I can agree that they are relevant/related, but those are not inclusion standards for external links, we are not writing a linkfarm. I see the last two here in my edit-window, which both have 'includes libertarian socialists' in their description - first of all is this article not about libertarian socialists, it is about libertarian socialism (we should have a 'list of libertarian socialists', where the link may be of some interest). Secondly, for both cases it suggests that there is (way) more on the linked pages than only libertarian socialists, so an interested reader may have to select what is of relevance to them. Many of the subsections in the external links section almost warrant their own article (where the links can be used as references): 'history of libertarian socialism', 'list of films dealing with libertarian socialism'. Moreover, others are easily suitable as references by slightly rewriting the prose. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Beetstra: :We are talking about two different things. You are talking about building an article. I'm talking about how one approaches a built article. Specifically on the latter, the approach of "delete everything except items where someone convinces that it should stay. But you make good arguments for the deletion, which moves my opinion to "either way is fine with me" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@North8000: I see where you come from, but your approach has shown not to be too successful as the article was tagged for external link cleanup since Jan 19, 2015. Broken window theory applies. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
@Beetstra: Good thoughts. Please do whatever you think is best. North8000 (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Unrelated references

Some of references the in the opening seem to just be about anarchism in general.FourLights (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Which ones? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Anarchism

I am not an expert on this subject, but it seems to me that socialist libertarianism cannot be too far removed from anarchism. Should similarities (and possibly differences) between the two go to the top of this article?Vorbee (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Libertarian socialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion that affects this article

There is a discussion / presentation of ideas that affects this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Libertarianism Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Libertarian socialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Is Libertarian Socialism Synonymous With Anarchism?

The main question here is the question of whether "libertarian socialism" is synonymous with "social anarchism".

At one point the article claimed it wasn't, however now it claims that it is. I'm not really very good with Wikipedia yet so I wasn't able to find the version where it said that it wasn't, but I do remember it.

Regardless, the statement that it is synonymous is contradictory with parts of another Wikipedia article. Specifically, this one: Left-libertarianism. The diagram used in this article claims that social anarchism is a subset of libertarian socialism, and that other non-anarchist philosophies can fall under it.

I think it might be worthwhile to state that all social anarchism is libertarian socialism, but not all libertarian socialism is necessarily social anarchism. I'm not going to edit the article yet because I want to hear if anyone else has any thoughts on this matter.

Jupiterjaeden (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

"Anarcosocial-communist" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Anarcosocial-communist. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup for length

@Cinadon36, this article has been tagged for length cleanup for two+ years, in case you have time to work the magic that you did at History of anarchism. czar 11:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Czar, now its the first item on my to-do list. : Cinadon36 (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm still a somewhat new editor. Could you point me toward WP guidelines about "tagged for length cleanup"? I've noticed a similar overbulkiness in other articles and, though I personally find them too unwieldy to be helpful in an encyclopedic fashion — sometimes I've given up on W'pedia and bought a printed-on-paper book instead — I'm really reluctant to project this onto the target user.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Have you already read Wikipedia:Article_size? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talib1101 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks much!
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The major obstacle, in my opinion, is the structure of the article. It is kind of a list of other ideologies or currents that have been named libertarian socialism. The scope of the article should not be to present every little detail of libertarian socialism history- it should explain its history (briefly), philosophy, and major currents (2-3). When we sort out what to do with the structure of the article, the haircut won't be that difficult.Cinadon36 (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

That problem is inevitable because (like many of the political science article with compound titles) this probably really isn't a distinct topic, it's a two word sequence that has been used in many different ways. In these cases, the experts would be those who could provide overviews of the usage of the term. In this respect philosophers are creators, not experts. In some other areas like right libertarianism and left libertarianism I know enough to be pretty sure of myself and feel that we should cut them down to short articles about the meanings and usages of the term. I suspect that this is also the case with Libertarian socialism but am less knowledgeable there. Is this a real, distinct topic, or is it a two word sequence which has had widely varying usages? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Is this a real, distinct topic, or is it a two word sequence which has had widely varying usages?

Interestingly enough, I'm not finding this topic covered independently from "anarchism". For example, the "libertarian socialism" entry in Gay & Gay's Encyclopedia of Political Anarchy equates "libertarian socialism" as a synonym for "anarchism". The gist of the entry is that what we cover as "anarchism" has been known as just plain "libertarianism" for most of its history, e.g., that it refers to the socialist tradition within anarchism, as distinguished from "right libertarianism", confusingly shortened to just "libertarianism" in the United States. This is to say that libertarian socialism could be covered as a synonym of anarchism within that article or within another section that discusses the transformation/distinctions of the term "libertarianism" or, as an aside, variants of socialism.
The Oxford Encyclopedia of American Cultural and Intellectual History gives the phrase a passing mention in a very similar setup: "hence 'libertarian socialism' is equivalent to 'socialist anarchism.'"
czar 04:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
It hard to find the difference (if any) of the term libertarian socialism to anarchism. But the real problem is the scrutiny of RS that examine Libertarian Socialism as a distinct current. (maybe because it is not) Any proposals on how to go ahead? Cinadon36 (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I 've had a look at the archived discussions and it seems to me that there are plenty of talks around the same issue we are dealing with now.

  • Archive 1: ie 3rd and last section (then untitled)
  • Archive 2: Look at "Suggested Sets", "Anarchism" and "Why here, and not Anarchism?"
  • Archive 3: look at "Why oh why does it deal with Anarchism and not Libertarian socialism"

If we do not deal with this, relevant questions will continuously pop up and I feel it 's hard for someone to decide by himself on what changes(reforms) should be implemented. My opinion (mild) is that we Keep lede and Overview, delete everything else and start again. Cinadon36 (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion would be similar. With the caveat that while I'm good at noticing and sorting out such things, I don't have the expertise that others above have in this portion of libertarianism. Evolve it toward coverage of the term. But, if so, is there content that should get moved to Anarchism? North8000 (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

"Pinta and Berry’s conclusion draws on some of the cross-currents of socialist thinking expressed in these chapters and identifies the most powerful areas of convergence in the gap between social democracy and Bolshevism on the one hand, and anarchist individualism on the other. Their analysis treats libertarian socialism as a form of anti-parliamentary, democratic, antibureaucratic grass roots socialist organisation, strongly linked to workingclass activism. Locating libertarian socialism in a grey area between anarchist and Marxist extremes, they argue that the multiple experiences of historical convergence remain inspirational and that, through these examples, the hope of socialist transformation survives. The potential for revolutionary change continues to rest on the possibility of convergence rooted in social struggles, because it is here that affinities are forged and mutual dialogue takes place" from the introduction of ) Alex Prichard; Ruth Kinna; David Berry (2017). Libertarian Socialism: Politics in Black and Red. PM Press. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-62963-390-9.. As for your question, it will take some time to check the article (every section is an article by itself) I need a week or so. Cinadon36 (talk) 06:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
After a skim of that concluding Pinta/Berry chapter, I wonder whether that quoted goal (from the introduction) was more aspirational for the authors than accomplished in practice. I would be interested if you find any arguments in the book that libsoc is materially different from the content in our "anarchism" article in anything but terminology. I.e., if the idea is that libsoc accommodates "councilism", my understanding is that would still fit within the non-individualist part of anarchism that accommodates local democracy (in other words, is that just a surface-level difference in terminology again?) And no particular rush—this article has been a mess for quite some time czar 11:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Whether it be via. leaving a very short article on the term (vs. a redirect) or addressing the term at the redirect target, I think that it would be good to at least briefly (even 1-2 sentences) address the term somewhere. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

To perplex the matter a little bit more, there is this WP article also: Left anarchism. Libertarian socialism is closely related to anarchism. Have gone through Levy's book and that is my feeling. Different authors link LS to different currents (ie anarcho-communism, Bookchin's communalism). Also in communalism: "A prominent libertarian socialist, Murray Bookchin, defines the communalism political philosophy that he developed as "a theory of government or a system of government in which independent communes participate in a federation", as well as "the principles and practice of communal ownership". The term 'government' in this case does not imply an acceptance of a state or top-down hierarchy.[1][2]". It's a mess. Cinadon36 (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and it extends to most of the "hyphenated" libertarianism articles. (for example right libertarian and left libertarian) I've pretty much come to the conclusion that all of those should be deprecated to short articles covering the common meanings and usages of those terms. A more meaningful breakdown of libertarian articles would be by time and place. We seem to be chasing ghosts when we try to cover it by the "hyphenated" strands of libertarianism. "Place" is important in many ways, a big one being that even the meaning of "libertarianism" is very different in the US vs Europe. North8000 (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Maybe we can handle this article as a starting point / template for dealing with the others. North8000 (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Some sections of this article are identical to Libertarian Marxism.Cinadon36 (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

So here's my take and proposal. "Libertarian socialism" is more of a two-word sequence that has been used with varying meanings and is not really a distinct topic. Cut the article down to about 1/4 of it's size, with the focus on the definitions and usages of the term. Regarding material that might go, if it is primarily on the TERM and it's usage (since there is no such distinct topic) if it's too detailed / too off on individual tangents, let it go. If it is good material that is on a distinct topic, maybe move it to where that distinct topic is covered. Also maybe use it to expand/cover libertarianism in specific places and times, which I think is the real detailing of the variations of libertarianism. After we finish this one, move on the most of the other "two-word-libertarian" articles which have the same problem. North8000 (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

"A two-word sequence ... with varying meanings", but isn't one of those meanings more way prominent than the rest, proportionate to its usage in sources? My suggestion would be to describe libsoc as a synonym of anarchism in the existing Libertarianism#Etymology section (I started to make a separate article on the definition of libertarianism/anarchism or the relation between anarchism/socialism to this effect and then found this extant section). Anything that needs to be said on anarchism's tradition as a left-aligned political philosophy and its relation to the term "libertarianism" has a natural fit in this existing section. Are there sources that cover the other "varying meanings", I imagine, e.g., socialism based in liberty, for a literal definition? If not, then I wouldn't worry about disambiguating "liberarian socialism"—it can just be a redirect with obvious links on where to read more. Eh? czar 02:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I dunno. There are things that I'm good at (ability to analyze/notice the types of things that I'm writing about) but I don't have the level of expertise on this topic that I think that you and others here have. I'm more trying to propose/ crystallize a direction than have any strong opinion on this.North8000 (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Similar to the recent changes at the article Anarchism, I think some of the longer subsections under "Notable tendencies" could be trimmed down to focus more directly on how each tendency relates to Libertarian socialism as a whole. Another point to mention is that "Anarchism" is listed under "Political roots", but classical anarchism was a libertarian socialism not so much a root or precursor. Please let me know your thoughts. Oeqtte[t] 10:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this article needs some serious trimming. It is far too long and difficult to read. Cinadon36 10:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to list most of the ideologies that are currently listed, but they should be trimmed down to focus on what you wrote or at least not be a mere repeat of the article's lead. I hope they can be better listed and discussed like it was done here, without removing any listed ideology.--Davide King (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: Anarchist socialism would also include post-classical schools, no? Is there some reason why they shouldn't be included? All is part of libertarian socialism afterall. Kindly, Oeqtte[t] 08:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree they should be included. I wrote that because as of now it only includes classical anarchism. As far as I know, I always understood anarchism as a whole to be a libertarian anti-capitalism and socialist movement, for they're all opposed to capitalism and their economics fit well within the broad socialist tradition. Green anarchism is still socialist as it is anti-capitalist, incorporating ecology to socialist economics; or the post-left seems to be very close to anarcho-communist economics, just like Godwin and Stirner have also been seen as communists in practice within the anarchist tradition; even if they may personally deny or reject this. That's why anarcho-capitalism isn't generally seen as part of anarchism, because it supports capitalist property rights and social relations, whether clearly or tacitally (if by anarcho-capitalism is merely mean some form of voluntaryism, which isn't actually the case, then there's already anarchism without adjectves and synthesis anarchism for that, many decades before anarcho-capitalism was even a thing); and national-anarchism is generally seen as a far-right trojan horse and its acceptance of racism, sexism et all to be fine as long as it's voluntary (the same argument used by anarcho-capitalists) in their tribal communities which is at odds with anarchism's opposition to hierarchy.--Davide King (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes sorry, there are some post-classical schools mentioned in the "Other tendencies" section that I haven't got around to organising. If we're in agreement I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to convince me of. "Anarchist socialism" only implies there are anarchist and non-anarchist currents of socialism, not that there are socialist and non-socialist currents of anarchism. Oeqtte[t] 09:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
That's exactly what I always thought too, Oeqtte. I wrote that because anarchist-related articles still include anarcho-capitalism (see Anarchist economics), which should be discussed only in Anarchism and capitalism and Issues in anarchism; and not in every anarchist-related article, especially when most of the time it ends up writing that most anarchists and sources reject that, etc. (see The majority of anarchist theorists do not consider anarcho-capitalism as a part of the anarchist movement due to the fact that anarchism has historically been an anti-capitalist movement and for definitional reasons which see anarchism incompatible with capitalist forms.[2][114][115][116][117][118][119][120] as an example).--Davide King (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Anarchist socialism or Socialist anarchism?

Oeqtte, I don’t understand why you think that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which uses the term socialist anarchism[11], is an insufficient source. Do you have a more reliable source? Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The Free Love Movement and Radical Individualism By Wendy McElroy". Ncc-1776.org. 1996-12-01. Archived from the original on 31 December 2010. Retrieved 2010-09-20.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference freelove was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Nicolas Walter. "Anarchism and Religion"
  4. ^ a b http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freethinker
  5. ^ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free+thought
  6. ^ http://www.iheu.org/glossary/12#letterf
  7. ^ http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/freethinker.php
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference mises.org was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Geoffrey C. Fidler (1985). "The Escuela Moderna Movement of Francisco Ferrer: "Por la Verdad y la Justicia"". History of Education Quarterly. 25 (1/2). History of Education Society: 103–132. doi:10.2307/368893. JSTOR 368893. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  10. ^ "Francisco Ferrer's Modern School". Flag.blackened.net. Archived from the original on 07 August 2010. Retrieved 2010-09-20. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |archivedate= (help)
  11. ^ Individualism, Libertarianism, and Socialist Anarchism // Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  • I feel that we shouldn't be asking ourselves which term is more correct. We should be asking: which term is most frequently used at thethe literature? Cinadon36 12:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Гармонический Мир, I prefer anarchist socialism for the simple fact it means socalism that is anarchist (i.e. exactly what the section is about) whereas socialist anarchism means anarchism that is socialist and is mainly used by those who include anarcho-capitalism or view individualist anarchism as being non-socialist, despite individualist anarchists considering themselves as such and collectivists and communists agreeing with it, notwithstanding their dfferences. I think only people like Bookchin didn't consider individualists socialists and used socialist anarchism; then again, Bookchin also didn't consider Proudhon a socialist (although at times mentioning the individualistic artisanal socialism of Proudhon) despite Proudhon being one, aknowledged by both other socialists and sources. Either way, I agree with Cinadon36. I just think Anarchist socialism is fine and I wouldn't know of how else title it.--Davide King (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Гармонический Мир, that's not really true as many anarchists clearly and proudly called themselves socialists and saw themselves part of the movement, indeed the libertarian, anti-state socialism one (this is from what I've been reading and searching too). To me, it seems clear that anarchist socialist is perfectly fine, for we're talking about socialism that is anarchist, not anarchism that is socialist. Furthermore, the source you gave use socialist anarchism because it also talks about anarcho-capitalism, which seems to confirm my view that socialist anarchism is really used vis-à-vis anarcho-capitalism (see "The Trouble With Socialist Anarchism"), usually conflated with social anarchism (ignoring or misunderstanding individualist anarchists who called themselves socialists, were for socialism, etc.) and so anarchist socialism is the better choice.--Davide King (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Гармонический Мир, I don't get why you mentioned them, for there's no mention of them in the article (which is what we're discussing about) and they're a minority. Either way, that doesn't mean they aren't actually socialists, or even communists, just because they reject the term. Godwin and Stirner are considered both anarchist and communist, but they didn't label themselves either.--Davide King (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: Is it necessary to have two separate anarchist sections at all? As I mentioned above, anarchism shouldn't be considered among the "Political roots" if it is itself a libertarian socialism. I would think the content of the first section could be moved to the second. What are your thoughts? Oeqtte[t] 09:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Democratic socialism

The IP 91.127.237.140 claims that Democratic socialism is usually statist in nature and does not push for a anarchist society. Libertarian socialism on the other hsnd is fundamentally anti-statist, and is firmly anarchist but that is their personal opinion. While democratic socialism may be seen as closer to social democracy, there is also a revolutionary tradition within democratic socialism that would fit libertarian socialism, so I believe their opinion on this mutually exclusivity is wrong. We also mention people like Peter Hain and Noam Chomsky who emphasiz[e] that state intervention should be supported as a temporary protection while oppressive structures remain in existence, with Hain seeing libertarian socialism as as minarchist rather than anarchist, favoring radical decentralization of power without going as far as the complete abolition of the state.

Then the IP writes If you have a source that establishes a solid connection between libertarian socialism and democratic socialism, I would like to see it. But so far you have provided no such source but they are the one proposing the change, so the onus is on them to provide the source which mentions democratic socialism as contrasted and opposed to libertarian socialism; neither of the two given sources say that and they only mention Bolshevism, Leninism, fabianism and social democracy, which is what is summarised in the lead; they make no mention of democratic socialism.--Davide King (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

We also have a sourced section about the labour movement and parliamentary politics.--Davide King (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Still is class-C and has lengthy cleanup. Tcochran6 (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Criticism

Here, the IP 2606:A000:1000:C081:3C0E:9B9F:8759:FADB re-added the Criticism section, without even adding the tag correctly put by Oqwert. I simply removed it, even though I am an inclusivist, because it violated NPOV, due weight and fringe. I am all for adding criticism of libertarian socialism, but it needs to be based on mainstream and scholarly sources, not fringe and one-sided right-libertarian and New Right ones. I mean, is right-libertarian criticism even mentioned in books that discuss criticism of libertarian socialism? Is criticism of libertarian socialism itself notable? I would note that we have Criticism of communist party rule, Criticism of Marxism, Criticism of socialism, Economic calculation problem, Mass killings under Communist regimes and I could go on and on, but we do not have a Criticism section at Right-libertarianism, we do not have a Criticism of conservatism, Criticism of fascism (a redirect to section), Criticism of liberalism (a redirect to section), Criticism of populism and Criticism of nationalism (a redirect to section), so how is "[t]he entire article is a viewpoint from the left"? I do not see why Libertarian socialism ought to have a section when it is from such a POV and fringe view. If there are no notable mainstream or scholarly criticism, then it is undue we do not need a section, especially if the criticism is very similar to Criticism of anarchism. Finally, the onus is on those who want to add this section. I do not think we should have a section at all if it is like this. At the very least, it ought to be tagged back. Davide King (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm always skeptical of criticism sections as being coatracks and also because they plant a flag for presence or over-presence of something that maybe shouldn't be in the article. But on the flip side, I think that you are positing a higher standard for the presence of criticism than is the norm for Wikipedia. I think that the key points of the criticism section should be included. The "oxymoron" one is pretty widespread as in practice socialistic governments inevitably have had a very powerful central government. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
If it was so "widespread", why it is touted only by fringe sources or other libertarians? And why are the socialistic governments that governed the Western world in a more reformist or pragmatic sense excluded? Why is it that only the Soviet Union et al. are considered socialist (even though it is mainly anti-communists and Marxist–Leninists who think so), when right-wing critics lamented centre-left policies, essentially the post-war consensus, as socialism, but then making an exception, as you did here, that "socialistic governments inevitably have had a very powerful central government", even though that is not true for the same socialistic, centre-left governments in the Western world they decried and still decry as socialist? If all we have are sources from a 1959 book and American libertarian and right-wing think tanks such as the American Institute for Economic Research, the Cato Institute and the Institute of Economic Affairs, then sorry but this is not a good start for a Criticism section. We do not have a criticism section for right-libertarianism, even though there are actually scholarly, not fringe, sources that criticise it, so I do not see how I am positing a higher standard. If wanting more than one-sided think thanks criticism is higher standard, then I am guilty of that. Note that for Democratic socialism we have both a Support and Oppose section, which is more in line with Wikipedia:Criticism. The restoring of the section also removed the correct tagging added by Oqwert. I removed it because there is no consensus for it and because it was so bad that nothing could come out of it. If you or any other user try again, this time using mainstream and scholarly sources, now that would be a start for a criticism section and I would not have felt the need to delete it because it was not improvable since if criticism from mainstream and scholarly sources would be found and added, the current criticism would be undue anyway and be removed as a result. Davide King (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I think I made my argument and expressed my opinion. I'm ambivalent about it existing as a section, think that the the common criticisms should be somewhere in the article, and do feel that you are positing a much higher standard for the presence of the material than is the norm for Wikipedia. Regarding the topic that you brought up, one can't use current political dialog in the US as useful basis for anything. Everybody here describes anything about the other side as the more extreme variant than it actually is. My comment was referring to any national government that has gone anywhere near the technical definition of socialism. North8000 (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
It is very simple. If that criticism was truly relevant and notable, it would be reported in reliable secondary sources but none have been provided. Here, Oqwert provided reliable sources such as books and journals, yet none of this is done for the criticism, which is one-sided, fringe, or undue, unless it was reported in secondary sources. I find it funny you wrote "one can't use current political dialog in the US as useful basis for anything", but this is actually an argument in favour of deletion since in the United States socialism is a scare word used to refer to Communist regimes which, contrary to your comment, did not come closest to "the technical definition of socialism". Yet, given criticism follows exactly that pattern and push an American POV. I am using socialism as defined by the Historical Dictionary of Socialism, especially page 1 through page 3. As noted by Christian Fuchs, "[t]he notion of 'socialism' became associated with social democratic parties and the notion of 'communism' with communist parties." Yet, it is only in the United States where socialism is conflated with communism as defined by ruling Communist parties in Communist states, which is reflected in your two comments here. So no, I disagree that I am positing "a much higher standard"; I believe I am merely following Wikipedia:Criticism. A scholarly analysis, in the way Oqwert has done, would be much better; and unless this criticism by right-libertarianis is reported in secondary reliable sources to establish its relevancy and notability, then it is likely going to be removed in the future as being undue, with better criticism from better sources such as scholarly ones rather than one-sided think tanks. Davide King (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm done weighing in, anything more is just for fun. When I said "technical definition" I'm referring to the core of most of them which is collective ownership of the means of production. BTW I don't think there is any agenda in the US to conflate the two; the largest experiment of all time (USSR) self-identified as both. In US discourse, everything about the opposite team is identified as the more extreme variant in that direction and what you are referring to is a case of that. One other note, Wikipedia notability is a criteria for existence as a separate article, not a criteria for inclusion into an article. North8000 (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Except collective ownership of the mean of production is not the scholarly definition of socialism. I suggest you to really read the introduction to the Historical Dictionary of Socialism. Yes, scholars have noted that the Soviet Union still called itself socialist and dismissed those to their left or right as not being true socialist, yet scholarly analysis distinguishes between communism (communist parties) and socialism (socialist parties). It is also not clear what you mean when you wrote "everything about the opposite team is identified as the more extreme variant in that direction and what you are referring to is a case of that."
When talking about notability, I am mainly referring to WP:WEIGHT; if those comments by right-libertarians are not reported in secondary sources, then they are likely undue. This is a good summary:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

    Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
Davide King (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Explaining "everything about the opposite team is identified as the more extreme variant in that direction and what you are referring to is a case of that" In US political discourse the opposite team will identify:
  • Center right biased media as extremely right biased
  • Center righty viewpoints as "far right"
  • "Our country first" or "preserve our culture" viewpoints as xenophobic
  • Advocating slight moves towards socialism as advocating socialism or communism
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I originated the criticism section with the intent to add NPOV to the article and appreciate any help to make it better. I don't contribute to wiki very often so I always welcome guidance from wiki veterans. One important point I hope we can understand is that there is a long-standing tradition to create fallacious ad hominem attacks on ideas critical to any aspect of Marxist theory. This manifests as attacking all counter points of view as being "bourgeoisie", "anti-revolutionary", or even "right-wing". The problem with ad hominem is that it attempts to delegitimize all critical information at the source, by attacking the messenger in order to block the message. Ad hominem has the explicit goal of preventing a NPOV. This massive Libertarian Socialism page is full of other citations that I would consider fringe and that use entirely left-wing sources. Why isn't anyone demanding that the article contains right wing sources throughout its body? I wouldn't demand such because Libertarian Socialism in and of itself is left-wing political theory. In order to create a NPOV to a left-wing article, the counter is naturally going to be right-wing oriented. As far as the comment about criticism to Libertarian Socialism being non-scholarly or fringe, there are plenty of scholarly works on the subject, and the lack of familiarity is merely for a lack of trying. Try reading any of the works of Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Thomas Sowell, etc. I didn't have the time to source everything I had on the subject, but I don't think this is a fair request as normally the level of sources provided would be sufficient. If you're being honest, would you really be happy with a Nobel prize winning Milton Friedman quote instead? I would wager that you'd also not like it, or anything critical, and you'd want to delegitimize his point of view with weasel words like "right-wing". Jadon (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
You completely missed my point. This has nothing to do with ad hominem and everything to do that those are all primary sources, i.e. they are not mentioned in books that discusses libertarian socialism as Oqwert (sorry for pinging you again but I wish you would weight in) did with their additions, hence they are likely undue. What we need is analysis, not criticism, which is discouraged. Analysis can include criticism or negative reception, but all those sources are think thanks and non-expert opinions, when what we need are notable or academic books about libertarian socialism that mentions the criticism and discuss the analysis. By the way, Rothbard is fringe, as defined in the wikilink; and if Friedman, Hayek and Sowell's analysis is notable and relevant to libertarian socialism, it should be easy to find books about libertarian socialism that mentions or discuss their analysis. I have yet to see those books and secondary sources. I would also note that their definition on socialism (state ownership of the means of production and any government or state intervention, usually the ones they do not like or support, as socialist policies) may be common among us but it is fringe among scholars; fringe is also their view that fascism and Nazi Germany were socialist. Those are not ad hominem attacks but the consensus among scholars and right-wing is no more weasel than left-wing; what is left-wing, Stalin or Joe Biden? Is it really too much to ask for a scholarly analysis and to use secondary sources to report their criticism rather than primary ones to think tanks, which are not reliable sources, to establish weight? The onus is on you to provide those additions are due and notable; I am all for analysis, including criticism, but it needs to respect weight, and academic books and scholarly secondary sources would be much more preferable. Davide King (talk) 09:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Davide, sources than cover criticism (vs. ones that create it) are not only legitimate, they are more legitimate than considering the creator of the criticism to be the source and requiring that the creator be scholarly. If a common complaint about soy sauce is that it is too salty, the most legitimate source would be one that observes and writes about what the common complaint is, not a chemist that decides what "too salty" is. In this context, you are advocating ruling out the most legitimate sources but also advocating requiring those that are less legitimate as sources.North8000 (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Maybe I have a higher enyclopedia standards but I believe I am following reliable sources, weight and perennial sources. The Cato Institute "is considered generally reliable for its opinion. Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on libertarianism in the United States. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable on other topics. Most editors consider the Cato Institute biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed." And I have seen you disagree but think tanks are generally not reliable sources and I am definitely not "advocating ruling out the most legitimate sources but also advocating requiring those that are less legitimate as sources." I am actually advocating in favour of the most legitimate sources. Note that Weight says that "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." This economic liberal criticism may be common among the general public but if it does not appear in secondary sources, then we have to assume it is undue or non-notable. All I am asking is that their opinions are accorded to weight; if the opinion of the Cato Institute et al. has not been reported in secondary sources about libertarian socialism, then it is undue or non-notable. If their opinions have been reported in secondary sources about socialism, which is broader, then it should be seen as criticism of socialism; after all, they do not think libertarian socialism is a real thing. Again, if ther opinions are so notable and relevant, it should be very easy to find sources that follow those guidelines I linked. Davide King (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't agree with most of your post, but it was on a different point than I made so I'll just mention that. My point, more briefly, is that these terms refer to phenomena and are defined by the common meanings of the terms. My poit, stated more briefly, is that the people that you are referring to as sources are not coverers, they are creators. North8000 (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Could you please clarify that? I am usually inclusive, even of things that I may think or find undue, but I do not think the provided sources are good for that while Oqwert provided good secondary sources from literature about the topic. I do not think this point of mine has been actually discussed or refuted. I think it would be helpful if Oeqtte and Oqwert could also weight in. If there is notable criticism of libertarian socialism is secondary sources, rather than just think tanks, be assured it will be reported and added. So far, I have not found much, so I hope Oeqtte and Oqwert have more luck. Davide King (talk) 05:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, my overall theme is that you are positing rules for sources that do not exist with the net effect of excluding criticism. Later I pivoted to what I think is a widespread problem with coverage of current libertarianism (and related philosophies). Current libertarianism (et al) is a phenonema and the main current meanings of the terms are the common meanings in societal use. To cover it, you need to go to writers that are observers of the phenomenon in public and observers of the common meanings of the terms in public. People who are libertarian philosophers (who you seem to value as the best sources) usually do not have the expertise in and almost always never observe and cover the phenomena. Far from being the best sources on current libertarianism, they are not even sources on it. And even for historical & more philosophical coverage, they are over-used as sources because they are basically the creators of libertarian philosophy, not people providing coverage of it. North8000 (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Does that not actually imply removal of criticism? The Cato Institute et al. are libertarians, libertarian capitalists or whatever one wants to call them but you get the point, so by following your own point that "[p]eople who are libertarian philosophers (who you seem to value as the best sources) usually do not have the expertise in and almost always never observe and cover the phenomena. Far from being the best sources on current libertarianism, they are not even sources on it." That means the criticism should be removed because it comes only from (right-)libertarian (capitalist/whatever) philosophers. What I am actually asking for are exactly secondary sources that are experts on the topic to provide criticism rather than add criticism from the "libertarian philosophers" you yourself mentioned. What did I miss? Davide King (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
First, I do not discredit any source simply for being a think tank. An immense amount of scholarly and academic work occurs in them, even if it is selective due to some bias. Second, there is also good published sources written by individuals who also participate in think tanks. But, on to my main point in this context. Regarding individuals in the Cato institute, it would depend on what they do. If they are libertarian philosophers, then they would fall under my "usually not a source" category. If they are writing academic works about libertarian philosophers, then they would be a source. Most important, if they are writing as observers / study-ers of the libertarian phenomenon in the US and the meanings of libertarian terminology in the US, they are not only an source, they are probably one of the best and most suitable sources on that. North8000 (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
North8000, I actually agree with you on not discrediting any source simply for being a think tank because "[a]n immense amount of scholarly and academic work occurs in them, even if it is selective due to some bias." However, you must gain consensus to change the policy because currently, as far as I am aware, most think tanks are not considered reliable sources. Anyway, let us do some research. The critics are Charles Baird, Kristian Niemiet and Richard W. Rahn. The only notable one of which we currently have an article is Rahn, "an American economist, syndicated columnist, and entrepreneur. He is Chairman of Improbable Success Productions and the Institute for Global Economic Growth. Rahn writes a syndicated weekly economic column which is published in The Washington Times, Real Clear Markets and elsewhere. He was the Vice President and Chief Economist of the United States Chamber of Commerce during the Reagan administration and remains a staunch advocate of supply-side economics, small government, and classical liberalism." Charles Baird is an economist and Kristian Niemet is Head of Political Economy at the Institute of Economic Affairs, "a charity[1] and right-wing think tank[2][3] associated with the New Right.[4][5] It describes itself as an educational research institute.[6] It says that it seeks to "further the dissemination of free-market thinking", and claims that it does this by "analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems."[6][7] It subscribes to a right-wing[8][9] and neoliberal worldview.[10] It is based in Westminster, London, England.
Founded by businessman and battery farming pioneer Antony Fisher in 1955, the charity was one of the first modern think tanks,[11] and promoted free market and monetarist economics.[12] The IEA is more accurately described as a lobbying operation than as a think tank[13] due to its reluctance to disclose its sources of funding.[14] It publishes a magazine (Economic Affairs), a student magazine (EA), books and discussion papers, and holds regular lectures.[15]" Those does not look like expert views but biased opinions, which are likely undue. Davide King (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I've never heard of an policy, guideline or even list that excludes think tanks; such an over generalization would be silly. And I also think that you are positing rules for inclusion of criticism that do not exist. Elsewhere in Wikipedia I've seen the bar set about 10 levels lower, where a pointless baseless criticism from a nobody opponent gets in as "critics say....." or "...has been accused of" ....not that I would advocate going down those ten levels. And I'm not really concerned about what happens at this article or even other libertarian articles regarding inclusion of criticism. Actually I'd prefer to leave criticism out of all of them because that is not info about the topic, it is info about what people who don't like the topic say. (For this particular topic, I do think that "oxymoron" would pop into the head of most readers and that even a proponent of libertarian socialism would want to acknowledge and address that.) What I AM interested in (because I think that it has hurt all of the libertarian articles) is that libertarianism today is a phenomena, and the terms have their common meanings today, and the best sources for this would be people who cover the phenomena and the common meanings, not people who create or ponder philosophies. Not only are they not involved in the the phenomena and the common meanings, but that are actually creators, not coverers. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

North8000, well, I am pretty sure I remember one of your comments saying that think tanks should not be prohibited or never used and one users saying they are not generally reliable sources. In general, in comments about reliable sources, including about think tanks, I have read that Wikipedia does not consider think tanks to be generally reliable sources but perhaps that should be clarified or made more clear. Regarding your comment, "I've seen the bar set about 10 levels lower, where a pointless baseless criticism from a nobody opponent gets in", I agree, but that amounts to Other stuffs exist and we should not take this problem to this article too. I also agree that we should have more of an analysis and reception section, including both positive and negative analysis, while respecting reliable sources and weight (i.e. we should not put positive or negative undue analysis just because the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources have a positive or negative analysis about something, but we should accord them to weight). However, as noted above, those are not good critics. Only one of them seems notable and the other is from what has been described as "a lobbying operation than as a think tank." I say Ruth Kinna is a good source, fits your criteria and the book is about libertarian socialism ("Libertarian Socialism: Politics in Black and Red"), so if she mentions criticism, that criticism is likely due and to be added. Davide King (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Move article

Libertarian socialism should be moved to something else as the concept of libertarianism cannot be connected to socialism as libertarianism is the decrease of government control, whilst socialism requires total government control. ABruhRandomUser (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

That claim is just factually false, which you would know if you actually read the history of either libertarianism or socialism, e.g. in this article. --Pfhorrest (talk)
Funny you say that, most people who think Libertarian socialism makes sense also think that Denmark is socialist. Socialism requires a government control, as socialism is when the government controls the mean of production, whilst libertarianism is based on freedom. You cannot have freedom and have the country control the means of production. That does not make any sort of logical sense if you actually studied what the principles of socialism and libertarianism are. The problem with this article is that it claims to be anarchist but socialist. It is virtually impossible to have the government control the means of production and have freedom. (see Venezuela for more information)ABruhRandomUser (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@ABruhRandomUser: You don't seem to understand the meaning of the terms you are using. Could you please consult the pages for socialism, libertarianism, libertarian socialism and state capitalism and come back here if you have further questions. BeŻet (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@ABruhRandomUser: that's not true; luckily, the article explains what libertarian socialism is, so hopefully you'll know in the future. BeŻet (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

it isn't clear what reference 61 (Chomsky 2003) refers to

In the text, Chomsky is quoted as follows:

As Noam Chomsky put it, a consistent libertarian "must oppose private ownership of the means of production and wage slavery, which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer".[61]

Reference 61 says: Chomsky (2003) p. 26.

But I don't see an earlier reference to a book or article by Chomsky from 2003. (I see a 2004 reference to "Language and Politics", but looking around p. 26 in my copy of that book, I don't see the quote above.) If someone can tell me what book or article "Chomsky (2003) p. 26" refers to, I would appreciate it.

Thanks.

Eric Efoss1 (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The quote appears in On Anarchism first published in 2005, not sure if it's repeated from an earlier source or not. Alduin2000 (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I found it and tried to edit the reference itself, but I clearly didn't do it correctly. My comment ended up at the bottom of the references:

Reference number 61 should be "Chomsky On Anarchism", 2005, AK Press, p.123, from chapter entitled "Notes On Anarchism (1970)", originally published in Chomsky's introduction to Daniel Guerin's book "Anarchism"

Efoss1 (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Criticism paragraph

Just wanted to say that from a quick research, this article remains one of the very few mainstream ideological wiki pages without a paragraph on criticism. Draw your own conclusions. Lmagoutas (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Lmagoutas: Communalism, Leninism, Syndicalism, Sorelianism, Post-left anarchy, Council communism, Utopian socialism, Ricardian socialism, Neo-feudalism, Falangism, Neo-fascism, Left-libertarianism, Anarcho-communism... You get the idea. BeŻet (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I love how these are either some of the most nitze ideologies out there where a criticism paragraph isn't necessary for a number of reasons or ones which also are in dire need of one. So let me edit my first text to make you realize what I am talking about when I said a "quick research" as I was referring to more -let's say- popular ideologies, which I think is something that will make things clearer and hopefully show you that, if anything, your comment shows directly to the problem I am referring to. Lmagoutas (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
@Lmagoutas: Many of the ideologies listed above are a lot more prominent than libertarian socialism, and the purpose of that list was to show you that clearly libertarian socialism isn't uniquely lacking a criticism section, as smaller and more prominent ideologies don't have such sections either, therefore there are no "conclusions" to be drawn. BeŻet (talk) 10:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I responded to you with a sentence of two clear categories that are to be found in your list which I would recommend you revisit. In reality the conclusion is very much there, but -guessing from your profile- you really just don't want to see it. Lmagoutas (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
In order to add a criticism section, you first need to provide sources that document criticisms of Libertarian socialism. Since Libertarian socialism often overlaps with anarchism, many of the criticisms documented in that article also apply to Libertarian socialism. X-Editor (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Cooperativism

Should the cooperative party in the UK and the wider cooperative movement not be included under political roots/modern examples Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Alexanderkowal, can you provide any reliable sources that verifiably describe the cooperative party or the cooperative movement as "libertarian socialist"? -- Grnrchst (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for replying, I am unable to find anything that describes the cooperative movement explicitly as libertarian socialist. Does Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s support suffice lol? Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
No sorry, that would just be an assumption that the two are related just because we know of someone that was tangentially related to both. This article already has a problem with original research, so we should try not to add more. We need explicit and verifiable descriptions from our sources. -- Grnrchst (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Relevant discussion on original research re: "Libertarian Marxism"

Talk:Libertarian_Marxism#Still_Original_Research! --Grnrchst (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

It appears the problem with original research has also made its way into this article. In a quick scan I have come across multiple citations that fail verification, entire sections lacking in reliable sources and a few possible cases of synthesis. This needs work. -- Grnrchst (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
The more I look at it, the more I worry that almost the entire "Notable tendencies" section may need to be axed. It's incredibly long, inconsistently formatted and often unclear how it relates to the article's subject. Many of these sections seemingly only exist to summarise their own articles. One could probably cut this entire section down to a few paragraphs and nothing of particular value would be lost. -- Grnrchst (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I just cut the entire "Contemporary libertarian socialism" section, as it consisted almost entirely of text copy-pasted from the contemporary anarchism article, with the word "anarchism" swapped out for "libertarian socialism". None of the sources made even a passing reference to contemporary libertarian socialism, almost all discussing contemporary anarchism or left communism. This was another bad case of a section only existing to summarise a different article, and in doing so, twisting the text in order to make it seem like it fit here. -- Grnrchst (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm still going and I swear I'm trying to be conservative about what I cut, but this article isn't making it easy. It seems at times like stuff is just placed in at random, with no thought for how it fits into the rest of the section it's in, often with citations that verifiably don't even mention "libertarian socialism". I have only managed to come across a couple of instances where the cited sources verifiably discuss libertarian socialism, and these are unfortunately few and far between. One of these reliable sources, cited extensively throughout the article (Ojeili 2001), unfortunately falls victim to excessive quotation. So even the good sources aren't utilised well.
If you come across any content removal that you disagree with, please revert it and bring it up here. But as of yet, I'm struggling to find much of this article that is worth keeping. Grnrchst (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with those edits. I think that the better strategy would be to add citation needed tags and to enhance the use of good sources rather than this massive cull. I've moved the old version to my sandbox here and may try to find time to work on sourcing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Like many of the "two word" libertarian articles, they are about a vague term rather than a distinct real world topic that is merely named bu the term. And they become bloated mother-of-all coatracks, mostly about people pondering the term and things related to it. These mostly aren't sources about the term, they are the creators of musings about it. I'd like so see many of these reduced to short articles about the term and applaud any efforts in that direction. North8000 (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@North8000: Keeping focus on the term is what I'll aim to do with rebuilding this article. As per my restructuring of the articles on collectivist anarchism, social anarchism and green anarchism, my focus has been on sources that verifiably use the subject's terminology. This should hopefully result in a more focused article, rather than pulling together any old text from random sources that only have a tenuous link to the subject. In any case, it'll be better off than the unreadable omnishambles of misinformation that this article was a few months ago. -- Grnrchst (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't have the expertise in those areas to comment much further. The simple case (and the case for most Wkikpedia articles) is when there is a distinct real world topic known primarily by the title of the article. But I think we need to recognize when this is not the case. Where it is primarily (just) a term, possibly including a view of real world stuff created by the lens of that term. The fact that it is inherently about a concept doesn't change this. I think that a lot of the "two word" libertarian names/ articles are cases of this. For these I think it's best to recognize this, and to confine coverage to where the sources use the actual term. For example, (chosen only for it's simplicity) Lake Michigan–Huron should be about the concept of combining the two lakes and only where the sources use the term, it should not be coverage about anything else such as Lake Michigan or Lake Huron. North8000 (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Aye I agree completely. I'm coming at this as someone that mainly edits history articles, not having paid much attention to the -ism articles until I recently saw just how much of a state they were in. So if I were to be editing an article about a historical figure and saw that more than 75% of the sources didn't even mention them by name, then I wouldn't think twice about cutting those sources or the text they were cited to. I see little difference here. If most of the article is talking about random, tangentially-related stuff and the cited sources never even use the phrase "libertarian socialism", then it's worthless for an encyclopedic article. -- Grnrchst (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Another much more complex example is Right-libertarianism where there was another "tower of babel" complexity added. We had an endless friendly pleasant debate and never resolved it. North8000 (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@North8000: I've almost completely rewritten the article, drawing from clearly reliable sources that verifiably reference libertarian socialism. Let me know what you think. Although, to be honest, I'm completely burned out by this subject. It's so vaguely and broadly defined with such little actual scholarly analysis (because it's vaguely and poorly defined) that researching it was a chore. I really just wanted to get this over with.
I'm sure there's problems with it, so I trust others to alter the things they find issues with. For now I'm satisfied that there's no longer a problem with original research, synth and poor sourcing. -- Grnrchst (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
@Grnrchst: Cool. Thanks for all of that hard work. North8000 (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
@Grnrchst: One test that I encourage is to see if the topic exists distinctly independently of the term vs. something that is directly a creation of the term. IMO the former should be be a typical article about the topic and the latter should limit itself to being about the term. I don't know about this article, but IMO there are several "two word" libertarian articles which should be the latter. North8000 (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
@North8000: In this case, I'm kind of in two minds about it. One could say that libertarian socialism exists independently of the term, but it's also quite broadly defined and I don't think there are many people that identify specifically with "libertarian socialism" but not one of its many "branches" (defined retroactively, as the "branches" mostly precede the umbrella term). As for the term's historical use, Google Ngrams appears to indicate that it wasn't used much at all before the 1940s and only actually took off during the 1960s.[5] This aligns with what I know about the term "libertarian socialism" largely being a product of the New Left, hence why that section is the largest one - having the most sources on it - while the ones before it are relatively short (being retroactively claimed as "libertarian socialist" despite not identifying themselves as such). -- Grnrchst (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libertarian_socialism/Archive_5&oldid=1237971917"