|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Libertarian socialism article.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5|
|Artificial market was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 03 June 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Libertarian socialism. The original page is now a redirect to here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.|
|Libertarian socialism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.|
|Current status: Former featured article|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
- 1 RFC/User Conduct for User:BlueRobe
- 2 On the proposed artificial market merger
- 3 Deletion
- 4 Is Femke Halsema a libertarian socialist?
- 5 Neutrality
- 6 What evidence is there that all libertarian socialists are social anarchists? Are there no libertarian socialists who are not social anarchists?
- 7 did someone copy and paste this from uncyclopedia?
- 8 Does somebody...
- 9 Condensing
- 10 Positions unclear, unanswered questions
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.
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)
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)
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)
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."
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 220.127.116.11 (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)
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?
... 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)
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
- 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
- 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.
- 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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2013 (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). ". 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)
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?