Talk:Libertarian socialism

Wording is bias

I think this article needs a good bit of rewriting to be sure it is more neutral. I forget the wiki lingo for this. here is an example: "Libertarian socialists seek to replace unjustified authority with direct democracy". I know that "unjustified" is probably dificult to replace here but as someone that even agrees strongly with Libertarian socialism I find reading the article to be a bit obviously biased. So, such words should be replaced or this article should be marked by wikipedia as in conflict or questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.212.190.142 (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

according to libertarian socialist writings probably the only appropriate substitute for the phrase "unjustified authority" would be "illegitimate authority". Is that any better? It seems pretty much the same to me. The basic idea is that lib socialism puts all authority under critical scrutiny to prove its worth. A tendency of thought that has much in parallel with attitudes towards authority in science by the way. It is only by the critical scrutiny exercised by an informed, inclusive, deliberative, participatory democracy that authority can be ascertained as legitimate. BernardL (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Direct Democracy? I thought Libertarian Anarchism means no authority. Socialism with democracy is Democratic Socialism, correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.148.97 (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of libertarian socialism

This section does not provide criticism of libertarian socialism but mostly provided a (capitalist) libertarian view on property and socialism. One of the libertarian critics mentioned actually died seven years before the term was invented. I will remove this section, if there are no arguments for keeping it. TFD (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I say we keep it. The critique is fundamental, as a very often quoted libertarian, Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian economist, put it, "The continued existence of society depends upon private property." Libertarian socialism is for or against private property? Darkstar1st (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I understand that they represent different belief systems. But why should we present the views of libertarians when they are not directly addressing libertarian socialism? TFD (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement for removing it.ValenShephard 00:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

support the criticism section

First, the topic of this article is the concept of libertarian socialism, not the term itself. The concept existed long before this particular term was invented to refer to it. So we can't discount criticism of the concept just because it predates the invention of the term that now happens to be the most commonly used name for the topic.

Second, since the eschewing of private property is key to libertarian socialism, any statement regarding, or argument that is in favor of, private property being necessary for civilization to exist in a free society, is inherently a criticism of libertarian socialism.

Finally, criticism sections of such articles are not expected to be full explications on the topic - there is insufficient room for that. The key purpose is to establish that the criticism of the topic exists and to summarize what it is, ideally in a way that paves the way for further discovery.

Therefore, I support the inclusion of the criticism section and in the general form it currently is in. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If I may add, I just came to the talk page to look exactly for this kind of discussion, I had already skimmed through the article in hopes of finding something along the lines of "criticism" or "controversy" to no avail. As a rather uninitiated person I am baffled that such a concept can even exist since libertarianism is inherently individualistic (where I come from at least.) Abolition of accumulating wealth seems to be at odds with the very core principles of libertarianism while they are not necessarily at odds with liberalism (one is entitled to equality under liberalism thus "social liberalism" is not an oxymoron, while one is entitled to nothing and bears close to zero accountability for their finances under libertarianism.) So did someone just swap liberal for libertarian? I guess words are what you believe they are, if people have started to favor "libertarian" as a synonym for "liberal" I guess that would explain that. So, yes, personally I think a criticism section would be very relevant. I mean only if the purpose of the article is to acquaint an uninitiated reader of course. Samarkandas valdnieks (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

For the purpose of this section it is not our fault that you are an "uninitiated person" and that you are "baffled that such a concept can even exist". The anarcho-communist Joseph Dejacque called himself "libertarian" in the mid 19th century and there are many self described individualists who were and are also socialists as articles such as individualist anarchism, insurrectionary anarchism, anarcho-communism and egoist anarchism show. But also "libertarian" is almost a synonym of the anti-capitalist position called anarchism in most of the world. Such statements of surprise in my view don´t belong in a talk section of a wikipedia article but in an outside political forum or something similar. From that point on I think we shouldn´t take your suggestions seriously since you confess openly that you are not well informed about the subject and we intend to give the most accurate information possible to uninformed readers such as you. I mean, I am sure I will be surprised to read some things that I didn´t know in an article about physics or zoology but I am humble enough so as not share my ignorance with the world in a place where it doesn´t belong--Eduen (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"More appropriate on a political forum" or not you have answered my question. In other words it's a matter of semantics and the fact that "libertário" (or any other local variant) have been used in the Mediterranean countries for decades to refer to anarchists (who in turn are socialist) - I saw this etymology/semantic link on another article or another site already before. Where I live the political discourse has been shaped by exile Americans and since we don't speak a Romance language a Latin word is usually confined to a very specific meaning (which is also the case in English.) Thus a word that is overwhelmingly understood to denote a right wing ideology (Tea Party, David Nolan, Ayn Rand, etc., etc.) is here seen in a completely different context, i.e., re-appropriated to refer to the Mediterranean sense of "libertário" which, has little to with the non-Mediterranean sense of libertarian i.e. "conservative liberal." I guess a criticism section is not so relevant here rather the article lead section could include a note on semantics and how this word came to be used in this context and that they are "false twins" (or something) or "not to be confused with" the "Ayn Rand sense" of libertarianism. The same goes for Libertarianism article itself (I mean that article is a hot mess) of course one can always indulge in a metaphysical debate whether the purpose of Wikipedia is to familiarize an uninitiated reader or not, well I found the answer on the talk page/the other article that mentioned the libertário-anarchist semantic link so I guess it's all good. Samarkandas valdnieks (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

von Mises statement

A well cited critical statement of the topic of this article that has been in the article for several years has been recently removed [1]. Despite my best efforts to explain why it should remain in the summary comment when restoring, it has been removed again and again [2] [3] by the same person, apparently without regard to WP:BRD (in this case the bold move was removal of the statement, which I reverted and so discussion here should have been initiated at that point; instead, we went through two more cycles of BR and now I'm the one initiating discussion.)

Per the general reasoning established above (#support the criticism section), the statement should be restored. The statement is:

As Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian economist, put it, "The continued existence of society depends upon private property."

More specifically, this simple statement is important and relevant here because it addresses the key objection to libertarian socialism: the eschewing of a concept that is believed by many economics authorities, including Ludwig von Mises, to be necessary for the continued existence of society: private property. Von Mises' books, and many others, explain in great detail why this is the case, but going into all that in this little section of this article would not be appropriate. What is appropriate here is to inform the reader that this fundamental objection exists, and what it is, in summary, which is exactly that this quotation does.

I submit that since the statement has been in the article for a long time, and its removal is hereby challenged, the burden to show consensus is on the side that seeks to remove it. I am therefore restoring the statement pending the establishment of a clear consensus to remove it. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why it was deleted, but I'll note that no one needs to show a "clear consensus" to remove it, when you didn't establish a "clear consensus" to add it. BigK HeX (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't add the statement. The statement was established in the article for years. The bold move was removing it without establishing consensus. Being bold is fine, but sometimes there is objection, as there was in this case (from me), which is typically expressed in the form of a WP:REVERT, per WP:BRD. There is no burden to show consensus for reverting a bold move - there is a burden to show consensus before repeating a bold move which has been reverted. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

While an established consensus may not be necessary, there very certainly IS a burden of proof when adding material (or reverting material back) into an article. YOu've now taken on that burden of proof. Personally, I agree with ValenShepard though ... the quote adds nothing informative. BigK HeX (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That's true only when the issue is citation, but that has never been the issue here since it's a well-cited quotation. The issue here is whether the material is relevant (arguably a matter of opinion), and for (cited) material that has been in the article a long time the burden is on those who wish to remove it to show there is consensus for removing it. That said, since there is two of you now in favor of removing, arguably the burden has shifted. I'm waiting... --Born2cycle (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason I removed it because the whole paragraph it is in explains the private property issue some libertarians have with lib soc. What I removed is not a criticism, it is simply a statement of von Mises' ideology. It is as silly as me putting a quote by Proudhon for example in the liberalism or capitalism article which simply says property is theft. It doesnt say anything, it doesnt explain anything and it doesnt add anything. There is no need to outline a famous part of von Mises' ideology in the article. And like I said, the private property issue is properly explained in the paragaph. Also, why does the libertarianism article have no criticism section?--ValenShephard 21:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree about whether the statement adds or not and see what others think. By the way, I think Proudhon's "property is theft" does belong as a criticism in an article about liberalism or capitalism, as property is fundamental to those ideologies.

As to why libertarianism does not have a criticism section I suggest it's because that article is a complete mess since it is about the term and all its meanings (perhaps in violation of WP:NAD) instead of being about the most commonly used meaning of libertarianism. As it stands it's really a dab page on steroids, and so a criticism section makes no sense, since there is no clear single topic that the article is about which is to be criticized. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont think thats a good argument. Because the libertarianism article is poor doesn't mean it cant have a criticism of the ideology. But still, I think it is pointless to criticise ideologies by just hearing the ideologies counter to them. Thats like two people of different religions arguing which is the true religion, or which is 'better'. A 'belief' is not a good argument against another belief. Simply two opinions, their disagreement is implied already by their differences. Its like me writing in an article on Jesus that a famous philosopher said Jesus didn't exist. What is the point of that? The von Mises' quote also doesn't explain why private property is freedom. What is needed is a simple small section that says 'some libertarian philosophers (or whatever) believe that the institution of private property is central to any free society (or something). I think that unless libertarianism has a similar criticism section where socialist libertarian philosophers simply quote their beliefs with no or little explanation, then it shouldn't be here.--ValenShephard 21:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think "Jesus did not exist" (or "Jesus was not the son of God"), are clearly criticisms of Christianity (assuming those making those assertions have additional material to explain them further, though that additional stuff does not belong in the Christianity article).

Anyway, I did not say that the libertarianism article cannot have criticism of the ideology because it is poor, I said it cannot have criticism of the ideology because there is no "the ideology" to be criticized in that article. No matter how times I read that article, I can't figure out what it is about. I don't know how you'd go about finding criticism of something that is incomprehensible. I mean, this is from the intro: "There are many kinds of libertarianism, some of which directly oppose others". Do you think you can find criticism of "many kinds of libertarianism, some of which directly oppose others"? Good luck with that! --Born2cycle (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, you said that Jesus statement would be fine if there was more information attached to it, and this is one of my main points here. Von Mises' statement doesn't have more information or an explanation attached to it. And also, some of the criticism section simply discusses what the free market varient of libertarianism is, thats not a criticism or an argument, simply an ideologicial disagreement which is implied already and doesn't need to spelled out.--ValenShephard 22:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, no, you misunderstand. I did not mean that additional material needs to be attached in the article, just that it exists. In the case of the von Mises quote, he has chapters of books covering the topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Basically, because the differences are already explained and taken for granted. Anyone who reads the intro can understand that these libertarians don't like private property and anyone reading the free market varient will get the opposite. Why would there be a section in the liberalism (not libertarianism as thats a wide subject) simply discussing the ideas of peopel opposed to it, it would be removed as inapproproate and POV. Overall that means that some of this section, and some statements, shouldn't leave the ideology open for a soapbox of opposing ideas to simply explain and advertise their beliefs.--ValenShephard 22:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As one user said above: 'I understand that they represent different belief systems. But why should we present the views of libertarians when they are not directly addressing libertarian socialism?' Couldn't say it better myself.--ValenShephard 22:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Any statement in favor of private property IS directly addressing libertarian socialism, just like any statement in favor of evolution is directly addressing intelligent design. For example, a valid criticism of intelligent design can be expressed in one word: fossil. See 4:35 [this video] for a great example of that! --Born2cycle (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain what, to you, is the difference between "addresses" and "relates to", if any? It seems like you're using them interchangeably. When Darwin penned the Origin of Species, was it "addressing" a set of counter-arguments that would coalesce 200 years later? "Directly Addressing" has a very distinct meaning, meaning the quote or excerpt was on the subject of libertarian socialism. The von Mises quote is on the subject of private property and society. If you're just pulling together RELATED material to form a criticism then that's original research. Besides, the quote doesn't contain any logical constructs, evidences, or proofs. It's a guy saying that something he favors is the best, end of quote. Even if it did directly address libertarian socialism, the content of it would amount to "I disagree." 98.236.191.219 (talk) 04:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If people want to know about the free market, private property varient of libertarianism, it is taken for granted and assumed that they will find that article, not find their arguments squeezed in as a 'criticism' of other varients, especially when these criticisms are not directly addressing libertarian socialism, or even the whole ideology.--ValenShephard 22:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we're talking about the fundamentals underlying each ideology, and that's where they differ, so the premises of one are criticisms of the other, just like "fossil" is a criticism of ID. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No. If a fossil is to be used against intelligent design they would not simply write: 'fossils exist', they would write 'fossils exists which means...'. The statement of von Mises, and several other statements, as the other editor agrees with me, do not explain themselves, just as 'fossils' doesn't explain (although it may seem obvious to you and this is arguable) why intelligent design is flawed.

And for you to use something scientific, which can be measured empirically is also a bit sneaky. We are not talking about something which physically exists, we are talking about ideas. And because it is not for us to judge which is 'better' (or whatever) we cannot simply use one idea against another. Namely, we cannot use one ideology or one philosophy to disprove or criticise another, they coexist in their seperate spaces, as they should here. If you can find empirical arguments against libertarian socialism, or arguments that try to examine libertarian socialism (not just talk about alternatives or criticise it without explanation) then please do. I think your argument has ran out of steam.--ValenShephard 23:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you watch the video I linked? Saying the word "Fossil" (alone) IS a criticism of ID, or at least of the idea that the earth was created with all plants and animals known today in 7 days. Similarly, the idea that private property is necessary for civilization to continue is a criticism of libertarian socialism. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I said it was arguable whether 'fossil' was enough, I don't think it is. All there needs to be on the private property issue in the article is 'some libertarian philosophers believe that private property is central to a free civilisation'. Not to have their ideology spelled out. Nothing more needs to be said. If a reader is intrigued, he will click on their names or find their ideology. I recently argued to have a similar thing removed, and people supported me and it took less than 6 hours to remove. It was about the Afghan War Diaries that got leaked, someone had put a 'criticism' which didn't actually deal with the war diaries themselves, and it was promptly removed. Just like this should be here and simply leaving a statement saying something like what I suggested, otherwise the 'criticism' has too much weight in the article anyway. --ValenShephard 14:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Remove Libertarian Socialism from Libertarianism article?

Some people want to because it's just two sentences, even though it links to this article. Feel free to add more info with WP:RS and/or to comment here Talk:Libertarianism#Socialist_Libertarians.3F_LOL_How_about_militaristic_pacifists.3F. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually looking at lead of this article, I don't have a problem with merging it with left libertarianism section. FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've responded at Talk:Libertarianism#Socialist_Libertarians.3F_LOL_How_about_militaristic_pacifists.3F. A merge is a terrible idea. They are two clearly separate topics, and the current Libertarian socialism article is too long to be merged into the articles for any of it's super-categories (e.g. socialism, anarchism, libertarianism, left-libertarianism). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

remove Darkstar1st (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st -- On Wikipedia talk pages, editors are generally expected to provide reasons for why they disagree with things. We don't vote here -- we discuss things using reasons until we reach consensus. Could you explain a policy-based reason why we should not include it? (i.e. I don't want to hear what you think about it -- I want you to show me a policy that says we should not discuss something that is covered in a wide array of reliable sources). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't remove.--ValenShephard 01:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

ValenShephard -- On Wikipedia talk pages, editors are generally expected to provide reasons for why they disagree with things. We don't vote here -- we discuss things using reasons until we reach consensus. Plesae try to stick away from empty votes, and stick to comments like your following one based on WP:V (which was totally accurate and valid) that cite Wikipedia policy. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably shouldn't be utterly removed ... but -- within the Libertarianism article -- merger with left-libertarianism is probably OK. BigK HeX (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian Socialism is not a form of Libertarianism and has next to nothing in common with Libertarianism. The only reason it has been included in the article on Libertarianism is the ridiculously absurd use of the word "Libertarian" in it's name. Get rid. (And I'm heartily sick and tired of left-wingers hijacking Wiki political pages to spin their revisionist nonsense to justify left-wing doublespeak). BlueRobe (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Your soapbox at the Libertarianism page wasn't big enough? BigK HeX (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Stalker with no life, much? BlueRobe (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Uhh... you threaded your soapbox rant above as if replying to me. Who's the stalker, again? BigK HeX (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I threaded my comment as a general reply. It's not my fault it looks awkward and confused because you and ValenShephard don't know how to format properly. L2colon. BlueRobe (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Psst ... the point remains. *I* was in this talk page section long before you, and thus, the concept of me "stalking" a person that later shows up on the talk page borders on moronic. In any case, I'll make you a deal. I'll "learn to use colons" if you agree to learn to use the talk pages properly, instead of using them for your personal rant and WP:OR space. BigK HeX (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, I didn't even see you here until you addressed me, lol. BlueRobe (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Remove. Toa Nidhiki05 20:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Nidhiki -- On Wikipedia talk pages, editors are generally expected to provide reasons for why they disagree with things. We don't vote here -- we discuss things using reasons until we reach consensus. Could you explain a policy-based reason why we should not include it? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv has provided a great summary here, and I agree with it. Provide reasons to make up your argument. ValenShephard (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not going to be removed because reliable sources refer to this ideology as libertarian. Your own personal views do not affect the fact that academics and reliable sources list socialist libertarianism as one form of libertarianism. ValenShephard (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Who died and made you Jimbo Wales? We rule by consensus here, not the will of one person. Toa Nidhiki05 00:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I didnt say anything about me. I said reliable sources and academic sources refer to this ideology as part of libertarianism, you can't argue against that. We write articles based on what reliable sources are available, and there are dozens of them which speak about socialist libertarianism as a legitimate ideology and part of libertarianism. If you want to talk again, use sources, not just personal references. ValenShephard (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Nidhiki is right, we go by consensus here. But the consensus of a handful of editors on this talk page does not override the consensus of the community at large -- see WP:CONLIMITED. The consensus of the community at large is that we neutrally report what reliable sources have to say -- see WP:V and WP:NPOV. Since there are numerous high-quality reliable sources mentioning libertarian socialism as a libertarian doctrine, we will discuss what they have to say about it here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv, I've noticed that a disproportionate large number of your posts are C&Ps of the same posts (usually as examples of sheer hypocrisy on your part). If I discover you are botting, or I continue to see the same posts repeated over and over again in reply to people you disagree with, I will not hesitate to seek action to deal with your behaviour. BlueRobe (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming C&P means copy/paste. If that's the case, you are correct -- I often do copy and paste posts when I have the same exact message for multiple people. I repeat things to individuals when they repeatedly violate policy, even after being warned. If you'd like to report me to the WP:Copy Paste Noticeboard or the WP:Repetition Noticeboard -- by all means, please go ahead. (Just click on the redlinks, create the noticeboard, and write a really long detailed post, and wait for someone to respond.)-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

(P.S. But before you start creating new noticeboards to deal with non-issues, I'd recommend that you take a look at some of the policy and guidelines that other editors have been trying to get you to read, and try to change the way you edit and interact with other editors.) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Even BigK HeX doesn't refer to Wikipaedia polices as much as you. Your posts read like a lawyer's letter, where he fills up 3 pages of legislation and threats to intimidate people in case they might be contemplating opposing the lawyer's cause. What are you over-compensating for with all that WP spam? BlueRobe (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Policy is how we resolve disputes around here. Otherwise, nothing would ever get accomplished with our editors coming from such a wide range of political/religious/cultural backgrounds. When attempting to resolve disputes, I discuss policy rather than debating politics, because that's what we're supposed to do (see WP:NOTAFORUM). If you don't like that, maybe Wikipedia isn't the place for you. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no dispute resolution in your posts. I don't even see an attempt to resolve disputes in your posts. All I see is an array of threats and intimidation aimed at anyone who challenges your uncompromising position. The irony is, I agree with you on most issues, but the offensive manner in which you convey them are clearly breaches of WP:Harassment. BlueRobe (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It is problematic that you don't see telling other editors to stop arguing, to adhere to policy and to work towards consensus, as forms of dispute resolution. I have not threatened, intimidated, or harassed anyone (and you need to provide diffs back up your bad faith accusations). If all you are seeing is threats, then you're not listening -- I'm making suggestions on how to improve the article and resolve the dispute, based on policy, and am not threatening anyone. All I'm asking is that people discuss improvements to the article instead of soapboxing and debating, and based their suggestions on what is in reliable sources, rather than their own personal opinions and original research. If this offends you, that's your problem, not mine. These policies were consensually designed by the community, and you should get used to them, or go and discuss your problems with them on the relevant policy talk pages. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

(P.S. And by the way, this conversation is going nowhere, and is off-topic. Why don't we get back to discussing what reliable sources have to say about the term "libertarian socialism"?) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv, STOP EDITING MY COMMENTS. Seriously, you're like the street's resident mental health out-patient who sits on his balcony ticking off all the "crimes" committed by his neighbours in a secret logbook while being completely oblivious to his own wrong-doing. Evidently, your senses of communication and compromise come direct from the Dick Cheney School of Charm. BlueRobe (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel better? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism vs. socialist libertarianism

I am a libertarian socialist, and i have been classified as such not only by myself but by online assessments of ones political affiliation. As such, i have good grounds to assert that the title of this article is misleading, and i would greatly appreciate it if it were changed. I am unfamiliar with the volume of work published about this subject, but i think that the governmental system/philosophy described in the article would best be described as socialist libertarianism, or socialist anarchism, depending upon whether any form of government actually exists in said system. Libertarianism advocates for less government, specifically a government only designed to safeguard people's rights, and anarchists demand no government whatsoever. Socialists, on the other hand, on the whole accept the necessity of government in the economy, unlike Marxists and capitalists, but unlike communists do not believe that the government should own all property. Socialists believe that the government should not only regulate the economy, but ensure that every citizen has equal opportunity based upon effort and a minimum standard of living, unlike liberals. Thus, since the word "socialism" in "libertarian socialism" is being described by the adjective "libertarian", the term would seem to imply that this philosophy or governmental system is mainly socialist in nature, but accommodates libertarian ideas, rather than one that is mainly libertarian in nature and accommodates socialist ideas, like the philosophy described in the article.

As a counterpart to the view of libertarian socialism in the article (which as aforementioned, better fits the description of social libertarianism or social anarchism in my opinion), my own view of libertarian socialism can be defined as a system in which there is private property but the government controls many aspects of the economy and sponsors public social programs, but there is very little governmental interference with society in general except in cases of protecting and respecting individual rights. By this interpretation, libertarian socialism would actually be a system with a big government (though only in terms of economic regulation and beneficial social programs), rather than one with very little government. So my argument is that the term used as the current title for the article is too ambiguous as it can be and has been construed in radically different ways and should be replaced with "socialist libertarianism" or "socialist anarchism" to eliminate confusion.--Webspidrman 22:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Right wing edits

Unkown to rightwingers there is such a thing as Left libertarian in which all forms of control (Government, Church, Rich.) are to be overthrown and replaced with a sort of group proptery and intrest. The new left of the 60's is the closet thing i can think of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.118.232 (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

there is already a term to describe such: anarchy. welcome to the discussion, your input is valued here! please make a user name as some edits are restricted to only verified users. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

RFC/User Conduct for User:BlueRobe

Editors with an opinion about User:BlueRobe's conduct in the disputes above may comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BlueRobe.

Poor referencing/WP:OR in article

I just removed some of it and tagged others. For those who may not understand, any WP:Reliable sources reference must use the phrase "libertarian socialism" and then discuss its relation to any other topic. Just listing what you think is related is called WP:Original research and is forbidden. Please read these articles if you have not already. Also, it would be nice if whatever the substantive differences between left lib. and lib. socialism could be explained in both articles, or why have them? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Freudo-Marxism? The Frankfurt School?

Are these really forms of libertarian socialism?? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

they are marxist schools critical of the soviet union and totalitarism and burocratism in general. Marcuse was an intelectual celebrity in the libertarian new left of the 60s and influenced Yippie Abbie Hoffman among others if you didn´t know.--Eduen (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

it is an exceptional claim. You'd need multiple credible scholarly sources specifically treating libertarian socialism or western Marxism. Fifelfoo_m (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

well, unless you are trying to not see marxism as part of socialism. Marcuse even wrote an entire book which deals specifically on the soviet union and its ideological/political use of dialectical materialism. The book is called Soviet Marxism: A Critical Analysis (1958). Here he is doing the same thing as the communist left and authors of it such as Paul Mattick, Rosa Luxembourg, Cornelius Castoriadis and the anarchists such as Voline, Emma Goldman or Noam Chomsky.

Marcuse and Theodor Adorno have also been influential in recent anarchist theorists of the post-left anarchy tendency such as Bob Black (more Marcuse) and John Zerzan (more Adorno and Max Horkheimer, Zerzan uses the concept of Reification).

Somatherapy, which is an anarchist approach to social psychology is based on Wilhelm Reich.--Eduen (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Marcuse was a libertarian socialist, and should be in the article. But I don't think that Freudo-Marxism in general or the Frankfurt School in general were libertarian socialist, and I have never seen a source which says they were. Would you call Adorno or Horkheimer libertarian socialists? The Freudo-Marxism article refers to Deleuze & Guattari, who may be libsoc, but also to Zizek and Althusser, who are Stalinists. Please supply references showing that F-M and the FS were libsoc in general. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Left anarchism distinction

At the begining of the page it's important to make clear that Libertarian Socialism is only synonomous/compatible with Left anarchism - the socialist, anti-propertarian tradition. Right anarchist schools of thought such as Rothbardianism and Anarcho-capitalism wouldn't fit into the category of libertarian socialism. However, as long as this is made clear at the start, I don't think there would be any issue with using the word anarchism from then after to denote Left-wing anarchism. Teknolyze (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The use of Rothbard of the word "anarcho" capitalism started only in the 1960s while through all its more than 200 years history anarchism has been entirely an anticapitalist position and at times a furious one on that issue (anarchists have gone as far as attempting the assasination of capitalists) alongside marxism. This includes the minoritarian line of individualist anarchism within anarchism which motivated in thinkers such as Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner a kind of market socialism while european individualist anarchists influenced by Max Stirner came to the positions of illegalism and insurrectionary anarchism, both strongly anti-propietarian positions which go as far as advocating theft in what came to be known as individual reclamation. All this gives the conclusion that "anarcho" capitalism is a minority position even within individualist anarchism, to which it claims to belong. Also "anarcho" capitalism is a mostly USA centered position with almost null presence outside it and strongly contested by the majority of anarchism as a part of the anarchist movement mainly because of its defense of class difference and salaried work, clear forms of hierarchy.

So in the end you are giving too much consideration to rothbardism, which could be said to be less than 1 percent of all anarchism. Wikipedia has a clear policiy of not exagerating minority viewpoints and you are doing exactly that here.--Eduen (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

But the fact is that those forms of Anarchism still do exist; however small they may be in terms of adhearants. And all those forms fit on the Right side of the political spectrum in terms of property rights and views on economics, and therefor cannot be considered in any way socialist. In any case, you seem to be creating a very big fuss over A SINGLE WORD that's used once on the entire page to simply clear up any possible (however unlikely) confusion that could be caused among those unfarmiliar with the subject. Teknolyze (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Terms possible for common mistake, even by an ethnocultural minority (such as middle class USAians) ought to be disambiguated. The suggestion that, "Libertarian Socialism is only synonomous/compatible with Left anarchism" fails to recognise that a sequence of non-anarchist socialist movements including Marxist movements have been libertarian socialist. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

well, for a good reason the article "right anarchism" on english wikipedia doesn´t exist just as the articles "left wing conservatism", "left wing fascism" or "right wing communism" or "right wing marxism" don´t exist.--Eduen (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Eduen. Rothbardian etc "anarchism" is not recognised as anarchist by the overwhelming majority of anarchists, and, as the article makes clear, there are plenty of non-anarchists within the libertarian socialist camp. Personally, I think the "sometimes called social anarchism" should be taken out of the lede. If editors feel there needs to be some referencing of these issues, it should be in the @ism section, not in the lede.BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It's very true that Libertarian socialism exists outside as well as within the context of Left Anarchism in forms such as Luxemburgism, Council Communism and Communalism. Is it therefor appropriate to point out that Libertarian socialism is only considered synonomous by some with Social Anarchism?

However, I still think that it should be pointed out at least one time at the begining of the page that the ideology doesn't corespond with all schools of Anarchist thought; only the socialist, anti-propertarian wing. Teknolyze (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It might be that you are overexagerating a USA situation. Outside the USA, "anarcho" capitalism can be said that it just doesn´t exist too much. As I said before, you want to give undue importance to less than 1 percent of anarchism (if one does decide to include rothbardianism inside anarchism which as has been said before, many people don´t do) and so it is almost a paranoid position. Also i don´t think that the discussion on "anarcho" capitalism deserves a mention on the introduction of the article. You still have not responded to the issues I raised before as to the situation of "anarcho" capitalism within individualist anarchism. Please read WP:UNDUE and give us your opinion. Even in the USA a prominent anarchist such as Bob Black has written that "(For present purposes let’s disregard the Type 2, free-market anarchists who seem to have no noticeable presence except in the United States, and even there they have little dialog with, and less influence over the rest of us.)"Bob Black. "Theses on Anarchism After Post-Modernism". So I re-establish my point that speaking about a "left anarchism" is absurd as anarchism has been always a socialist position including the minoritarian section known as individualist anarchism.--Eduen (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Anarcho Communism

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.99.55 (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

support, unless someone can make the case how the two are different Darkstar1st (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It is clear that Darkstar doesn´t know too much about the subject and maybe he didn´t even read these two articles. Anarcho-communism is an anarchist position while libertarian socialism includes marxist philosophies. From a basic logical point one couldn´t include marxist currents on the anarcho-communism article.

Anarcho-communism rejects labour theory of value altogether while Libertarian Marxism as a marxist philosophy includes labour theory of value. Anarcho-communism is actually an older philosophy and so anyone can check the article anarcho-communism which includes a long history which goes back to the 1870s and 1880s in the debates between collectivist anarchism (Mikhail Bakunin a russian ) and anarcho-communism (Peter Kropotkin russian, Errico Malatesta italian) in the First international. Libertarian marxism on the other hand can be said to have appeared only in the early 20th century with council communism and left communism in Germany and the Netherlands and so it has a separate history from anarchist currents. Anarchist currents and libertarian marxist currents are both part of libertarian socialism (but with separate histories and evolutions), nevertheless libertarian socialism includes also some currents of utopian socialism (such as the positions of Charles Fourier) which precede both anarchism and marxism.

So Darkstar, i think you have to check both articles anarcho-communism and libertarian socialism a little more carefuly so that you can inform yourself a little better. Otherwise i think you are suggesting something similar to merging Ethiopian Christianity and rastafarianism. They might seem similar or related on the surface but actually have different histories and different places of development in both time and space.--Eduen (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The onus is on the proposer to provide a source that explains they are the same concept. TFD (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Political philosophies commonly described as libertarian socialist include most varieties of anarchism, especially anarchist communism

The Anacostia Diaries As It Is. Lulu Press. p. 160. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Umm ...yeah. That doesn't say ANYTHING about how the two are supposed to be the same concept. In fact, that source indicates they are different. Your complete and repeated failure to grasp the concept of sets wastes a fair amount of the time editors have to put in. BigK HeX (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

For reference, I've been through this with Darkstar1st on more than one occasion. Example: User_talk:BigK_HeX#how_is_anarchy_different_from_left-libertarian.3F BigK HeX (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Obvious Oppose. Rationale is a misunderstanding of how sets work. BigK HeX (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I can only agree with BigK HeX. Its almost like saying the article humans should be merged with the article mammals.--Eduen (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

are both anti-capitalist? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Animals commonly described as mammals include most varieties of warm-blooded creatures especially humans BigK HeX (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

They both are warm-blooded! The articles should be merged! [/sarcasm] BigK HeX (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose as per TFD/HeX/Eduen etc. Socialism is not communism and libertarianism is not anarchism, and libertarian socialism is not anarchist communism. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Bob, you may want to help edit the libertarianism article because many editors there consider libertarians, anarchist. what specific difference separate libertarian socialism and anarco communism? Darkstar1st (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)