Talk:Libertarian socialism/Archive 4

Source

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

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

List of libertarian socialists

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

Fact tags removed (by anon editor) from Clifford Harper, Errico Malatesta, Vernon Richards and George Woodcock. Justification: "all well known anarchists and so libertarian socialists". Have these people ever called themselves libertarian socialists? Have they been authoratitely described as such? Are all anarchists to be called libertarian socialists? BobFromBrockley 15:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

All genuine anarchists are libertarian socialists. While libertarian socialist does not exactly map to anarchist, anarchism is one of the schools of libertarian socialism. For example, Malatesta repeated called himself a socialist as well as a libertarian communist. I'm surprised I have to mention this -- it is almost like someone asking for references which prove the sky is blue... BlackFlag —Preceding comment was added at 09:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Genuine" is a rather specious term. What about anarchoprimitivism, post-left anarchism, and anarchocapitalism? None of these fits into Lib-Soc neatly. Granted, many intellectuals use the term anarchism and Lib-Soc interchangeably, especially anarchosyndicalists like Chomsky. But while mentioning that fact, it is important to tell the reader that not all anarchists use the term that way. I side with you, but others don't. Hence the need for NPOV.72.78.8.51 (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

vs. Libertarianism

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

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

Structure

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

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

"Libertarian socialism" is not a true form of Libertarianism@

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

That, hombre, is entirely your POV. Unless you can provide authoritative sources to that effect, there is no reason why the article should reflect these sentiments. Skomorokh ^incite 18:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

As is explained in the overview section, libertarian socialist organizations go quite far back, while their ideological roots go back even further. Reading material from the Libertarian International circa 1872 would lead many reasonable persons to conclude the obverse of user:Kepin's uninformed assertion - namely that it is the modern form of libertarian capitalism that contradicts essential libertarian principles, and is thus not a true libertarianism. But for the purposes of wikipedia this is neither here nor there. I'm not suggesting adding a similar pov tag on the "libertarianism" page, rather suggesting that the inclusion of such a tag here, for the reasons given, was a particularly specious and ignorant action.BernardL 19:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Completely support BernardL. The libertarianism page contains a very narrow, US-centric definition of libertarianism, which does not reflect the rich history of non-capitalist libertarianism(s), especially in Europe. BobFromBrockley 11:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticisms of libertarian socialism

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

Was Thomas Jefferson libertarian socialist?

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

I'd say he's more of a proto-leftist classic liberal. To call him a libertarian socialist would be a considerable anachronism. Nevertheless, libertarian socialism is itself a descendant of classic liberal philosophy, so he could potentially be considered one of the influences for early LibSoc thinkers. I'd have to do more research to make any more definitive of a conclusion, though. Sarcastic Avenger (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well "classic liberals" usually support a free market without any restraints on corporations (i.e. the companies can abuse the workers; and the gov't should do nothing to stop it; i.e. no pro-labor laws). Jefferson did not support a free market, but instead supported measures that would prevent the formation of corporations. He and the Democrats that followed him discontinued the central U.S. Bank, because Jefferson felt the Bank only served to concentrate money/power in a few wealthy persons, and was damaging to his goal of letting the common man rule his own life, rather than submit like "serfs" to rule by the rich. Thus he was staunchly anti-capitalist (afraid of too much money/power in a few large corporations)... that fits with how Libertarian-Socialist members think. - Theaveng (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Jefferson, like Thomas Paine, was a classical liberal with some egalitarian ideas. Benjamin Tucker, I think, described anarchism as Jeffersonian democracy taken to its logical conclusion. But it would not be correct to describe them as libertarian socialists. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 03:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be very difficult indeed to describe Jefferson as any kind of socialist, even in the rather vague, early 19th century, pre-Marx sense of the word. Many libertarians (say, of the Agorist variety) would argue that Jefferson did support a free market (I would agree) in the true sense of a free market, i.e., controlled neither by the meddling government nor manipulated by and for the benefit of larger corporations and the super wealthy. Neither libertarian nor socialist were terms in circulation in Jefferson's day, but a look at his philosophy would tend to put him on the libertarian side of things, at least generally speaking. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

He definitely did support a free market, but that is not necessarily anti-socialist, and when considering libertarian socialism is often quite relevant (see Mutualism (economic theory), individualist anarchism. While his ideas did probably influence certain libertarian socialists, especially in the individualist tradition, classifying him as a libertarian socialist (or anarchist) is anachronistic, and prior discussion on the old list of anarchists talkpage failed to find a citation. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 11:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to anarchism, Jefferson said we would have no government at all, if it were possible, but without government certain persons would be attacking other persons. It therefore becomes necessary to install a government to protect each person's rights. (Basically a repeat of the Declaration's opening sentences.) - Theaveng (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Mark Thomas?

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

I really think we need to limit the list to people who have specifically described themselves, or been described by strongly reliable sources, as "libertarian socialist". We shouldn't be comparing their views to the definition of libertarian socialism and trying to make the call on our own, because that's original research by synthesis. <eleland/talkedits> 17:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Question was me, obviously forgot to sign. Will remove Mark Thomas as OR. BobFromBrockley 13:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Mark Thomas calls himself a "libertarian anarchist"... ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 05:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

On not responding to trollish comments

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

I agree with this proposal. The less time that we waste responding to these absurd trollish comments, the more time we can spend actually improving these articles. I generally make a point of removing most POV-pushing comments that have naught to do with article improvement. These talk pages are not message boards. Besides, more often than not, when one responds to these trolls, it only encourages them. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the counter-responses are also annoying and inspire "corrections". --Lquilter (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for reference in anti-capitalism section

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

The source is C.P. Otero writing the editor's introduction (explicating Chomsky's main themes) to Noam Chomsky's book Radical Priorities. (The section of the introduction is called libertarianism vs. liberalism) :

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

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

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

Origin of Libertarian

The Oxford English Dictionary lists the first attestation of the word "Libertarian" as being from 1789, predating Déjacque (and being used by someone who was describing himself as Libertarian). Déjacque clearly is not therefore the origin of the word in English. Déjacque did coin the word libertaire, but the word libertarian already existed in English. The Jade Knight (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This should be merged with classic Marx communism

This should be merged with classic Marx communism (or the full realization of true communism when it is fully realized). This is true communism fulfilled minus the 'dictatorship of the prolitariat' that Lenin argued was necessary to fulfil true communism.

Another needed addition to the article would be how do Libertarian Socialists plan to bring about this abolition?

How is this accomplished? The article does not say how these favored institutions mentioned will bring about this abolition. Will it be evolution over time? There is no other way but eventual progression over time without going against the libertarian princples of non-viloence or coercion against others. How would they handle those who did not wish to come under this new system (not giving uo his tools to the group)and would wish for more wealth, make a different product or work under a different creative economy other than what the local group would want?

How do the so-called Libertarian socialists and Libertarian Marxists plan to get to this stage of abolishing authoritarian power structures without a temporary 'dictatorship of the prolitariat (or worker)', immediate bloody revolution or some means that would effectually force (coercion) the people who run these or like these institutions.

The article says, "...libertarian socialists place their hopes in trade unions, workers' councils, municipalities, citizens' assemblies, and other non-bureaucratic, decentralized means of action.[4] Most libertarian socialists advocate doing away with the state altogether, seeing it as a bulwark of capitalist class rule.[5]"

This was the eventual vision of Marx, Lenin, Engels and the Soviet Union (what it would look like after the dictatorship of the prolitariat - true communism) How is this goal of abolitioning the authoritarian structures preventing this Utopia accomplished? The article does not say how these institutions mentioned will, bring about this abolition. Will it be evolution over time? There is no other way but a gradual evoltion into this system without violating the Libertarian principles of non-violence and non-coersion against other humans.

So can anyone please try to find out and add to the article how these favored groups mentioned by the Libertarian Socialists/Marxists plan to throw of these authoritarian structures without violence or force. 96.248.7.243 (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know how I missed that section of the article that explains how some in the movement plan to accomplish this goal of abolishing the authoritarian structures. Albiet some are traitors to Libertarianism by advocating the violent overthrough of these authoritarian structures, except if those structures are overtly threatening the life or liberty of the person or people. 96.248.7.243 (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Source

This part of the article needs a source. I could be wrong, but it looks like OR to me. The part is: "Contrary to popular opinion, libertarian socialism has not traditionally been a Utopian movement, tending to avoid dense theoretical analysis or prediction of what a future society would or should look like. The tradition instead has been that such decisions cannot be made now, and must be made through struggle and experimentation, so that the best solution can be arrived at democratically and organically, and to base the direction for struggle on established historical example. Supporters often suggest that this focus on exploration over predetermination is one of their great strengths. They point out that the success of the scientific method comes from its adherence to open rational exploration, not its conclusions, rather than dogma and predetermined predictions." --Lanov (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Mendes, Silva. Socialismo Libertário ou Anarchismo Vol. 1 (1896): "Society should be free through mankind's spontaneous federative affiliation to life, based on the community of land and tools of the trade; meaning: Anarchy will be equality by abolition of private property and liberty by abolition of authority" One of the primary sources has been translated AND interpreted by the posting editor. The source lacks page numbers and does not directly support the claims made by the editor. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The Standford Encyclopedia has been used several times as the primary source in several articles linked to libertarianism, yet not 1 mention of socialism in the definition of Libertarianism, nor any mention of the term "libertarian socialism": http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/

I have yet to find a dictionary or encyclopedia that recognize the term "libertarian socialism" Here is an example of the documented evidence such a term does not exist: The Fallacy of 'Libertarian Socialism' Perry de Havilland Political Notes No. 186 ISSN 0267 7059 ISBN: 1 85637 573 0 An occasional publication of the Libertarian Alliance, Suite 35, 2 Lansdowne Row, Mayfair, London W1J 6HL. http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin186.htm Based on these facts, I recommend this article be deleted Darkstar1st (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Socialist anarchism

I have moved the reference to socialist anarchism from the first sentence to the end of the lede because I think it is not un-controversial. It is also problematic in wikipedia, because currently socialist anarchism redirects to social anarchism whereas if it is uncontroversially synonymous with libertarian socialism it ought to redirect here. I have no opinion on the correct redirect for socialist anarchism, but I think it is not right to say that it is interchangeable with lib soc, as many lib soc currents are not anarchist. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you name a libertarian socialist that's not an anarchist? Introman (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a Libertarian Socialist and I'm not an anarchist. Workers Unions, Municipalities and the like are still inherently coercive in principle, otherwise they'd just be impotent discussion forums. Libertarian socialism isn't really compatible with centralised government, but it's not totally anti-state either. Fudge-o (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Then I think you're not a libertarian socialist. I think you're describing yourself by the wrong term. Libertarian socialists are opposed to hierarchy. The state is not compatible with that view. When I asked, I was asking for some notable person that is referred to as a libertarian socialist. For example, Chomsky refers to himself as a libertarian socialist and says that's anarchism. It's simply the anarchist form of socialism. There is state socialism and libertarian socialism. Jadabocho (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

But a state doesn't necessarily imply a heirarchy any more than a municipality does. They are the same wolf beneath different coats. I'd like to know what the Libertarian Socialist idea of an institution is if not one that exerts influence somehow. If Chomsky claims to be a Libertarian Socialist, then he is either mis-representing Libertarian socialists or mis-representing Anarchists. There are too many potential differences between the two schools of thought to really call them synonymous. Aside from that, I don't really see the need to lump them both into the same category. Fudge-o (talk) 09:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Solidarity (UK) was for many years an influential libertarian socialist organisation in the UK, publishing texts by Cornelius Castoriadis, Maurice Brinton and others. They were not anarchists. 62.49.60.22 (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As the article makes clear, there are many libertarian socialists who are not anarchists. Not all syndicalists were anarchists, William Morris was not an anarchist, Murray Bookchin renounced the title anarchist for libertarian socialist, GDH Cole was not an anarchist. The word "libertarian" implies minimal state, minimal authority; anarchist implies NO state, NO authority. Libertarianism is a broader term than anarchism, not a synonym. I think it is silly to have "socialist anarchism" in the first sentence of the lede. It should be later in the lede. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You're not aware that the term "libertarian" means anarchism. The term "libertarian socialism" means "anarchist socialism" (or turned around as "socialist anarchism"). You're using the U.S-specific meaning of the term "libertarian" which includes support for a minimal state. In Europe, libertarianism usually means anarchism. That's how the term is being used in "libertarian socialism." Introman (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't seem correct to me. Yes, the etymological root of Anarchism is Libertarianism, but that by no means warrants the total dismissal of the distinct role Marxism plays within Libertarian Socialism. I agree with Bob, there are portions of Libertarian Socialism which maintain some "State" to an extent that certain strands of Anarchism do not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.155.70 (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Henry George, Socialist?

I have read several of Henry George's works, and he always denied being a socialist. I would suggest rewording your comments on him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silversoul7 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

# 1.4 Popular View on Libertarian Socialists

When I read these two sentences I was immediately struck by their POV, and I knew they just had to have been written by an angry right-wing libertarian capitalist (I used to be one myself, and yes, I used to insist that I was really a true liberal and not right-wing or traditionalist at all). Frankly, I don't think most Americans have ever heard of the term or much care, unless they are explicitly political, particularly with alternative politics, and this is a small minority. At any rate, although I attempted to improve the statement from equating LS with sheer communism (because I am an inclusionist, not a deletionist, and I don't want an edit war), I really believe it needs to be sourced, and is probably American-centric. Shanoman (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a section devoted to specifically addressing the....concerns.... of the Libertarian Right? I'll look into it....

"Conflict with Marxism"

I've changed the title of this section to "Relationship with Marxism". The content itself demonstrates that there is no inherent conflict between Libertarian Socialism and Marxism; even if their is a conflict between Anarchists and Marxists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.140.195 (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

Why does "Social Libertarian" redirects to libertarian socialism (this article) and not to the "Social liberalism" -article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism How would you call a person who follows the ideal of "Social liberalism"? --Englishazadipedia (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A social liberal? In practice, they're simply called liberals, at least in the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If someone is calling for liberalization of the market, then he may also be a conservatives. For example in your country, now many republicans call for freedom of the market concerning the health care system, however many democrats are for SOCIAL reforms, even though many call them liberals because (for instance) some call for legaization of canabis, for respecting mexican imigrants and so on.... Social liberalism is the idea that you need good social structures, and a regulated market for the sake of justice and to avoid companies becoming too powerful (Just now discussion: Should big companies be allowed to aid their candidates by spending billions of dollars on their campaigns: A "left wing/social liberal" would say no--> dangerous for democraty, a right wing liberal or an old fashion liberal would say yes--> freedom of speech). However they also believe that people and the system should be as free and liberal as possible, above all personal rights. Well, and obviously this very article doesn't have anything to do with Social liberalism. We have to distinguish here. Isn't a Social libertarian someone who follows the idea of social liberalism, and a Libertarian socialist someone who follows the idea of "libertarian socialism?"--Englishazadipedia (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Anarcho-socialism

Can we change the name of this article to anarcho-socialism? Here in the US the word "libertarianism" and the word "anarchism" are not synonymous. Therefore, the term "libertarianism socialism" really confuses people in the US. Changing the name would not confuse anybody who was already familiar with the topic...and it wouldn't confuse anybody outside the US...given that they already use "libertarianism" and "anarchism" synonymously. --Xerographica (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• You should really go read the policies regarding primary topics, names and weight. This is not the Encyclopaedia of Insular Americans. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

As the article shows, US libertarian socialists such as Noam Chomsky and Michael Albert use the label "libertarian socialist" in order to describe themselves and so the use of this word exists in the US. The word "anarcho-socialism" is hardly ever used by anyone most likely because all anarchism is anticapitalistic (except for the US centered radical neoliberal position known as "anarcho-capitalism" which a big part of anarchists actually don{t consider it is a part of the anarchist movement but just a radical form of neoliberalism and so a part of the right wing) and so saying "anarcho-socialism" is close to being a serious bad case of redundancy. It ends up being something close to saying "animal mammals" or "religious catholicism". I could even suggest you are underestimating US readers on their ability to understand something which is well explained in this article but also not doing justice to the millions of non-US english language speakers and to the real actual use of words.--Eduen (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If you search through the C-Span website you would be hard-pressed to find anybody using the word "libertarianism" to mean "anarchism". We invariably use the word "libertarianism" to mean limited government. We also use the word "socialism" to mean the opposite of limited government. When we talk about socialist countries we don't think of countries with non-existent governments. Wrongly or rightly we think about the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela and Cuba. The term "anarcho-socialism" helps people understand that there is public ownership of the means of production...minus the state. The term "libertarian socialism" adds absolutely nothing to people's understanding and is taken to be an oxymoron. --Xerographica (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

As I read about this C-Span thing that you talk about (sorry for my ignorance but I was neither born, not do I live in the United States) I confirm that it is a US television channel. I can only remind you that this is not "Wikipedia United States" but English Language Wikipedia and so from my knowledge I have found uses of "libertarian" by anarchists in places like Canada and Australia and in the non english speaking word the use of libertarian as synonym of anarchist is widespread. In the Uk there exists the huge website LibCom which is an abbreviation for Libertarian Communism which is also a widespread term.

But also even though this is english language wikipedia, this doesn´t mean we have to report here on uses only of english speaking countries and english speaking people but use in general be it english or not english language. I really find strange this use you give to the word "We". I can´t tell who are these "we" that you are referring to and that you sound like you want to represent in the first person. It is nice that you express your personal views on what you see as the superiority of the word "anarcho-socialism" over "libertarian socialism" for explaining something but it happens that wikipedia tries to report on actual widespread use of a concept and not on the personal views and affinities of wikipedia users and worse on the personal view of a single wikipedia user such as you. As such the word libertarian, as this article reports, has been used for themselves by anarchists since the mid 19th century and the first reported case was the anarcho-communist Joseph Dejacque. Also maybe you need to inform yourself on the subject of libertarian marxism.

This article mainly deals with anti-authoritarian forms of socialism and it is supported not by a personal theorectical elaboration but by the widespread use of the word "libertarian" by socialists (either marxist or anarchist) as well as by self labeled "libertarian socialists" and various analysis of political philosophy which identify a libertarian and anti-authoritarian form of socialism. From all of this analysis it could be argued that the particular US centric use of the word "libertarian" by right wing neoliberalism is the minoritarian one if we take into account a world wide space and that the socialist is the majoritarian since in the rest of the world the most usual thing is that those who in the United States adhere to neoliberalism and neoclassical economics but who call themselves "libertarians", in other countries tend to call themselves "liberals" and in many cases "conservatives" (see conservative libertarianism).

But now lets leave the subject of "libertarian" economic systems aside and lets remember libertarianism cannot be reduced to economics since the word "liberty" itself is not restricted to whatever personal opinion one could have of "economic freedom". As far as civil libertarianism it happens that in many socialist, communist and leftist parties ans well as anarchist circles there is a strong tendency towards supporting things like legalization of drugs, legalization of all kinds of consensual sex between adults and legalization of abortion while parties who advocate neoliberal economics ("minarchism") tend to be in many cases the most important parties opposed to these things (the case of for example the mexican Partido de Acción Nacional or the british Conservative Party.)--Eduen (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Anti-capitalism section

Aside from the section's title and an Anti-capitalism wikilink, there is nothing contained within the section which directly specifies if, how, and why libertarian socialism is incompatible with capitalism. Therefore, I am proposing that this section be deleted. Lenschulwitz (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you haven´t read well enough that section. It addresses the main complaints of libertarian socialism towards capitalism. Mainly capitalist class stratification and the development of an economic oligarchy over society. Now of course it can be improved.--Eduen (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, in support of my view, when I do a google search for "libertarian socialism", the first video that comes up is this video of Noam Chomsky where he says at 3:10 that he is not, in theory, opposed to laissez-faire capitalism. So, either Noam Chomsky is not a libertarian socialist, or libertarian socialism isn't necessarily opposed to capitalism. Which is it? Lenschulwitz (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is what Chomsky think about the basic capitalist form which is class relationship hierarchy based on wage salary and private property:

"The capitalist workplace is profoundly undemocratic. Indeed, as Noam Chomsky points out, the oppressive authority relations in the typical corporate hierarchy would be called fascist or totalitarian if we were referring to a political system. In his words : "There's nothing individualistic about corporations. These are big conglomerate institutions, essentially totalitarian in character, but hardly individualistic. There are few institutions in human society that have such strict hierarchy and top-down control as a business organisation. Nothing there about 'don't tread on me`. You're being tread on all the time." [Keeping the Rabble in Line, p. 280] Far from being "based on freedom," then, capitalism actually destroys freedom. In this regard, Robert E. Wood, the chief executive officer of Sears, spoke plainly when he said "[w]e stress the advantages of the free enterprise system, we complain about the totalitarian state, but... we have created more or less of a totalitarian system in industry, particularly in large industry." [quoted by Allan Engler, Apostles of Greed, p. 68] Or, as Chomsky puts it, supporters of capitalism do not understand "the fundamental doctrine, that you should be free from domination and control, including the control of the manager and the owner" [Feb. 14th, 1992 appearance on Pozner/Donahue]"

B.4 How does capitalism affect liberty? by An Anarchist FAQ

That as far as your focus on Noam Chomsky for some reason. But of course even if we decided to leave out Chomsky of libertarian socialism you still have to deal with all the other names mentioned here. I warn you that you might find people like Luigi Galleani whose followers apparently showed their opinion on capitalism by doing this to Wall Street. I really cannot think where anyone could find even some little approval of capitalism within all those names mentioned in this article (anyway you are free to try this) and so this also can be seen in the fact that libertarian socialism also is opposed to social democracy which is a position which tries to advocate a mixture of capitalism and state semi socialistic welfare state measures won through parliamentary elections.--Eduen (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Um, I appreciate your response, but it distracts from the issue at hand. Chomsky - just like Ayn Rand or Ron Paul - criticizes the modern day capitalist system, but he still, in theory, supports laissez faire capitalism. So, by the rules of logic, either Chomsky is not a libertarian socialist, or, libertarian socialism isn't necessarily anti-capitalist. Considering that Chomsky seems to be a prime figurehead within libertarian socialism, it would seem then, that libertarian socialism is not necessarily incompatible with capitalism.Lenschulwitz (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism exists at least from the French Revolution onwards as this article shows so is not like Chomsky invented libertarian socialism. In fact Noam Chomsky is not even that much of a theorist but more of a international relations and government policy commentator even though in between those subjects he has shown adherence to anarchism and libertarian socialism. As I read about this person Ron Paul that you speak about (sorry for my ignorance on US politics), he is a right wing neoliberal US politician who ran for president for the conservative US Republican Party and so it seems you haven´t read anything by Chomsky (all highly anticapitalist and anti "free trade" things) if you want to find something politically similar between them (or the similar on political opinions Ayn Rand). In fact I can´t even understand why you talk about them at all within this context. I suggest you read again the citation I provided on Chomsky´s views on capitalism.--Eduen (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I watch the video that User:Lenschulwitz refers to around the part at 3:10 Chomsky mainly is dealing with the subject of capitalist development. There he says that in his own words "unsubsidized, non-state subsidized capitalism" has only existed in what usually is called the Third World and that the so called Developed nations have achieved a developed rich capitalism mainly through state planning and subsidies. Then he says that the wealthy and powerful will not allow the laizzes faire market system as proposed by Adam Smith and instead make the state serve their interests. Then he says that he will like to see "in a mythical world" such system implemented "under the conditions Adam Smith described" but that he thinks that it doesn´t really work in the real world. As far as Chomsky´s views on Adam Smith´s opinions he says at the beginning of this same video (around 0:40) something that I will think rather controversial but anyway he says that Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson were "anti-capitalists" and that "people should´t be subjected to wage labour". Reading this from a logical point of view it is clear that this will make sense as far as Chomsky being and anti-capitalist and so siding with the "anti-capitalists" Jefferson and Smith againts current US "libertarians" who according to him defend values opposed to these values of equality. So from a logical point of view this works but as far as the accuracy of Smith and Jefferson being anti-capitalists that will have to be proven with citations and other proofs but of course not here but by Chomsky himself or disproven by someone in a rigorous study in a different context.

"Considering that Chomsky seems to be a prime figurehead within libertarian socialism, it would seem then, that libertarian socialism is not necessarily incompatible with capitalism."

Well, I appreciate you honesty as far as suggesting us you can´t really be counted as someone who has strong knowledge on the subject of this article. If you ask my opinion I will think "prime figuereheads" of a political philosophy will be either important influential theorists or important leaders or activists at a given historical period. As I see Chomsky, like I suggested before, his written work on politics tends to be mainly analysis of international relations and US foreign policy and so he is not really that much of a political philosopher. And this last thing becomes clearer if we decide to compare his work with people mentioned in this article such as Herbert Marcuse, Paul Mattick, Peter Kropotkin or Pierre Joseph Proudhon who have many long books dedicated to political philosophy through entire decades or others such as Buenaventura Durruti and Nestor Makhno who actually lead huge libertarian socialist armies againts states and leninists armies. So certainly Chomsky is famous today but I certainly will not put him as high as the before mentioned people or others such as Emma Goldman, Rosa Luxembourg, Mikhail Bakunin, etc. as far as libertarian socialist philosophy and influence on society. Even from a contemporary point of view people like Michael Albert, Gilles Dauve, Antonio Negri have written long works of both political philosophy and historical analysis so as to think them as more directly relevant as far as a discussion on libertarian socialist political philosophy.

So to conclude. Chomsky´s anti-capitalism, even if we decided to agree with you opinion that is should be doubted, yet the word libertarian has been used by anarchists since the mid 19th century and so in order to change the title of the section "anti-capitalism" to "views on capitalism" you will have to investigate on the other people mentioned here and other sources so as to propose the change you want.--Eduen (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Please remember that what counts on Wikipedia is verifiability, not your opinion, not mine. Each of my additions to the article has a source to verify it. If you disagree with one of my edits, there's no need to tell me I "can´t really be counted" on to edit this article or to summarize the sources as you see them. Instead, just tell me (briefly) why you think my sourced claim is not relevant to the article.

For example, you may have noticed that I've removed your recent edit to the anti-capitalist section, which starts by claiming: "A common libertarian socialist view..." I've removed this claim because it is an unsourced opinion that aims to represent the views of libertarian socialists everywhere. This violates Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy.

Now, let's discuss your unsourced claim that "Chomsky´s anti-capitalism". This is a misrepresentation and oversimplification of Chomsky's view. Chomsky states very explicitly that in his view

"terms like 'capitalism' and 'socialism' have been so evacuated of any substantive meaning that I don't even like to use them."

Furthermore, Chomsky makes it clear that when he uses the term "capitalism" on its own, he is actually referring to "state capitalism"

"Every industrial society is one form or another of state capitalism. But we'll use the term "capitalism," since that is more or less its present meaning."

Furthermore - as this article demonstrates - it is this "state capitalism" to which Chomsky is referring to when he speaks of Smith and Jefferson as being "anti-capitalist". The key thing to note here is that there are different theories of capitalism. To state that Chomsky is anti-capitalist because he opposes state capitalism makes about as much sense as stating that Chomsky is anti-libertarian because he opposes American libertarianism. Chomsky's position is clear and consistent: he opposes state capitalism, but supports (at least in theory) the laissez-faire capitalism described by Adam Smith.

Now, I'm all for building a consensus on this issue, but in order to do that, we'll need to understand one another, and frankly, I'm very confused on your position, so please help me out here. Is it your belief that Noam Chomsky's views on laissez-faire capitalism should be forbidden from being included within this article? Lenschulwitz (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Chomsky again. Anyway lets analyse this:

"Furthermore, Chomsky makes it clear that when he uses the term "capitalism" on its own, he is actually referring to "state capitalism"

As far as the video you decided to talk about Chomsky says that "State Capitalism" is what has been mainly applied in developed first world countries such as the USA and Western Europe. But he says that "laizzes faire capitalism" does exist and has been the kind of capitalism prevalent in third world countries. And so Chomsky clearly is dealing there with development theory. Another term which he uses to refer to laizzes faire capitalism is "unsubsidized, non-state subsidized capitalism". And so his writings are full of criticisms on third world capitalism and so we can thus think that he is also critical of the unregulated capitalism of third world countries. In many of his writings he reports how in so called Third World countries sometimes poor enviromental and consumer protection standards exist (if they exist at all) and how transnational corporations have gone as far as funding paramilitaries and military dictatorships in order to protect their investments and how capitalist investments can go unpunished for causing horrible evironmental disasters. So it can be implied that he is againts both what he calls "laizzes faire capitalism" and "state capitalism".

On Chomsky on Adam Smith I found the following essay directly on that subject. This is what Chomsky thinks of Adam Smith "I didn't do any research at all on Smith. I just read him. There's no research. Just read it. He's pre-capitalist, a figure of the Enlightenment. What we would call capitalism he despised. People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits."[1]

I will like to refer to this said by Chomsky on Libertarian socialism "Libertarian socialism, furthermore, does not limit its aims to democratic control by producers over production, but seeks to abolish all forms of domination and hierarchy in every aspect of social and personal life, an unending struggle, since progress in achieving a more just society will lead to new insight and understanding of forms of oppression that may be concealed in traditional practice and consciousness."[2] So these forms "of domination" for Chomsky include something basic for capitalism which is wage labour. Here is a video which shows well chomsky´s opposition to wage labour [3]

If you wanted to include Chomsky´s view on "laizzes fair capitalism" somewhere in wikipedia you will have to say that he thinks it has mostly been applied in the Third World and that his writings are full of criticisms and analysis on the harsh realities of third world politics and their domination by corporations. So that will still make him an anticapitalist. Maybe that particular discussion on the political economy of Chomsky could go in the wikipedia Noam Chomsky article or maybe in this article: Noam Chomsky's political views. This article should present a global vision of libertarian socialists opinions and on this particular subject the single libertarian socialist Noam Chomsky is also an anti-capitalist.--Eduen (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey I appreciate your response, but I'm really just looking for a 'yes' or 'no' here so that I can understand your position. Here's my question: do you believe (as an editor of Wikipedia) that Noam Chomsky's views on laissez-faire capitalism should be excluded from this article? Lenschulwitz (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the anti-capitalist section should just provide a summary of main libertarian socialist criticisms of capitalism. The issue here is not really one kind of capitalism or other but capitalism itself. Both laizzes faire and planned regulated capitalism have common features which libertarian socialism (incluiding Chomsky) reject. Mainly wage labour, class hierarchy and the emergence of an economic oligarchy over society.--Eduen (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Please, just answer the question. Do you believe (as an editor of Wikipedia) that Noam Chomsky's views on laissez-faire capitalism should be excluded from this article? I've asked this question three times now, if I don't receive a straight 'yes' or 'no' answer from you this time, I'll take that as a confirmation that you have no position on the matter. Lenschulwitz (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, first tell me what do you think Chomsky´s views on that particular subject are since you really have´t followed or commented on what I have pointed out about them. And then we could propose adding that to the article Noam Chomsky's political views.--Eduen (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Unsolicited outside observer comment: I don't think the section should be taken out (and I'm not prepared to take the time to explain why, just revealing my bias FWIW), but Lenschulwitz has asked the same reasonable question three times now, and Eduen is evading answering it for some reason. For this to remain civil and productive, there needs to be an answer or an explanation for the evasion. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think this article should have a more general view representative of the most prevalent view on libertarian socialism and not overemphasize Chomsky. Now I don´t really think I was evading an answer. I just didn´t get a response as far as the complexity of the issues involving Chomsky´s views which as I tried to show have to do with development theory and and its evaluation of the role that state involvement in modern economics has. I just got a request for an answer almost without really engaging in a discussion. Now in general libertarian socialism has a main characteristic which involves rejection of wage labour and so both state regulated capitalism and an unregulated capitalism involve wage labour and so a discussion on "laizzes faire" capitalism is not really important in this article.--Eduen (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

After viewing the video to which the original link leads Chomsky expresses agreement with the expressed goals of Smith and other enlightenment figures but in terms of the means proposed such as what he sees as Smith's version of "laissez-faire" he is actually more ambivalent and unsure. Chomsky's interpretation of Smith's "laissez-faire" should also not be confused with popular mainstream notions of laissez-faire. Given his comments and his use of irony with the Ghandi quote - I do not think it is fair to characterize him as unambiguously in favour of even a Smithian "laissez-faire" system. I also have to admit that I have much experience reading Chomsky's political literature over the years and therefore can firmly reject the proposition that Chomsky should be construed as a advocate of laissez-faire considering his political discourse as a whole. I would be willing to bet that virtually every experienced reader of Chomsky would agree with me about this. I also agree with Lenschulwitz's point that Chomsky is not the exclusive authority on libertarian socialism and that there are others whose views are just as important.BernardL (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Several editors have claimed that Chomsky is opposed to laissez-faire capitalism. If this is true, shouldn't there be at least one reference that supports this claim? Aside from the YouTube video, the only other reference I could find where Chomsky refers to laissez-faire capitalism is this interview where Chomsky speaks favorably of laissez-faire capitalism, calling it "an ideal case that would never be tried by any state or other social structure that has control over its own fate."Lenschulwitz (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This shows an important problem in relying on interviews and not on written essays as far as a discussion on political philosophy where one needs an specification of what is meant by a concept. I only wanted to suggest that unless we interview Chomsky, in this citation you provide he could as well been referring to this notorious concept by the sociologist Max Weber: Ideal type. The Wikipedia article explains that "It is also important to pay attention that in using the word “ideal” Max Weber refers to the world of ideas (German: Gedankenbilder "thoughtful pictures") and not to perfection; these “ideal types” are idea-constructs that help put the chaos of social reality in order."--Eduen (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Lenschulwitz I think you are distorting the position that Chomsky takes in the interview when you characterize Chomsky as a supporter of laissez-faire. http://www.spikednation.com/evideo/chomsky-libertarian-socialism-contradiction In responding to the laissez-faire component of the question he eventually gets around to laying out his interpretation of Smith's case for free market/non-state intervention in the Wealth of Nations. At around the 4 minute mark of the video he concludes that Smith's "ideal case" is "not in the cards. And I don't know if that argument works anyway. It probably does'nt. The argument was fallacious." And then Chomsky goes on nevertheless to express his concurrence with Smith's underlying goal, a society encompassing and realizing enlightenment values.Do you spot the distinction? BernardL (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Chomsky asks the question: "in some mythical world, would I like to see Laissez-faire capitalism?".

He then answers his own question: "Well only under the conditions described by Adam Smith."

Can someone please explain to me how it's possible to interpret that statement as a condemnation of laissez-faire capitalism? Also, for the record, the argument Chomsky calls "fallacious" is the claim that "under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality."Lenschulwitz (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

First note that this is not an academic essay. Chomsky is answering questions,extemporaneously, in other words thinking out loud, in a live environment. He begins by posing the question and answering "Well only under the conditions described by Adam Smith" He moves on to relating those conditions according to his interpretation of Smith, namely, "under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality" That is Chomsky's understanding of Smith's argument. As for Chomsky's opinion of Smith's argument he is more ambivalent. Not long after, and following the exact same line of argument Chomsky concludes that Smith's idea is "not in the cards. And I don't know if that argument works anyway. It probably does'nt. The argument was fallacious." These statements are exactly referring to Smith's conditional argument, namely that "under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality." I do not know how all this can be reasonably characterized as advocacy of laissez-faire. Especially when one takes into consideration Chomsky's various and much more clear advocacy of economic democracy via forms of self-managing, grassroots socialism without any reference to non-interference against market forces (laissez-faire). BernardL (talk) 02:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

user:BernardL asks: "I do not know how all this can be reasonably characterized as advocacy of laissez-faire?"

The answer is simple. Chomsky poses a question for himself: "in some mythical world, would I like to see Laissez-faire capitalism?" He then answers this question - his own question, mind you - in the affirmative. I'm simply taking Chomsky at his word, his affirmative word. Other editors seem to believe that they're better capable of speaking for Chomsky than Chomsky himself. However, from a strictly logical point of view, Chomsky's affirmative response makes sense, as it is in agreement with his writings, where he repeatedly makes a point to distinguish and specifically condemn "state capitalism", and deprecate the use of just plain old "capitalism" as a term by itself. There would be no need to bother with this if Chomsky simply opposed capitalism outright. Anyway, I'm done with this, apparently all the Libertarian Socialists on this talk page want any positive mention of laissez-faire capitalism suppressed from this article, and I don't have the energy to fight it any more. Topic suppressed, consensus failed, case closed.Lenschulwitz (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Lenschulitz, I'm finished with this too. I will leave aside your bluster and your extremely flimsy arguments that arbitrarily ignore the fact that Chomsky ultimately does not answer his question in the affirmative but rather characterizes the argument in ambivalent terms and then says it is fallacious. Nevertheless since the evidence presented seems to lead to varying interpretations perhaps the most honest tack for you to take is to re-pose the question to Chomsky. He receives hundreds of e-mails a day and attempts to answer the serious queries. Write him at chomsky@mit.edu I would suggest asking him whether he considers himself an advocate of laissez-faire and perhaps refer to this video where different folks have interpreted his response as variously positive or negative. BTW the reasons why he repeatedly makes the point that what we have is state-capitalism are 1) because he is telling the truth about the world we live in and 2) because in so doing it is necessary to dispel dominant myths that pretend that policy strategies such as privatization, trade liberalization, so-called financial liberalization are/were implemented for the purpose of re-establishing "free markets" whereas in reality capitalist elites have been using the state actively to re-design the world order in terms more favourable to them. Chomsky is de-mythologizing capitalist rhetoric about free markets. But from this one cannot logically conclude that Chomsky is somehow in favour of the free market ideals that are being de-mythologized. BernardL (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I can settle the issue of Chomsky's position on laissez-faire capitalism as not being anti-capitalist, as is presently portrayed in this article. In the documentary "Power and Terror: Noam Chomsky in Our Times", Chomsky is asked directly about his position on capitalism 39 minutes into the film. Chomsky replies saying

'"Gandhi was once asked what he thought about Western Civilization and his answer was he thought 'maybe it would be a good idea' and you could say the same thing about capitalism, maybe it would be a good idea, we've never had anything remotely resembling it."'

Lenschulwitz (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is plainly true, looking at the overwhelming majority of people and movements that describe themselves as "libertarian socialist" that most libertarian socialists are opposed to capitalism. It's kind of implied in the name, as most people see socialism and capitalism as opposites, or at least very different. Of course there are exceptions, as is always the case with big ideological labels, and it is always worth noting notable exceptions - Chomsky may be one, and Chomsky is significant, but not the first and last word in libertarian socialism. However, I think the section as it stands now (and also the following one on anti-authoritarianism) is overly general and un-encyclopedic and needs significantly edited and reducing, with some of the detail moved to relevant sections later in the article.BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Have done a little work to edit down anti-cap section and make stronger. Still not good enough.BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: provide context and clarification

In the USA the common meaning of socialism is "bigger government"; under that meaning "Libertarian socialism" becomes an oxymoron. My suggestion is to add a few explanatory/context/introductory sentences to more directly clarify that this is not the meaning of socialism used here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A sensible suggestion.BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the word "libertarian" has also been used and is being used in the USA by libertarian socialists. For example in New York City there exists the Libertarian Book Club since around mid 20th century as can be seen here. And here we can see how they want to distance themselves from US neoliberalism when they manifest that "Libertarian Book Club (LBC), New York City's oldest continuously active anarchist institution, founded by Jewish and Italian exiles from fascist Europe in 1946. We are not right-wing, capital-L Libertarians. We are left-wing anarchists. When LBC was founded, the word "libertarian" had not yet been co-opted by the free-market right, and was basically a synonym for "anti-authoritarian" or "anarchist." We stubbornly refuse to surrender the name."[4] Also I know of the organization called Common Struggle – Libertarian Communist Federation and there exist US intellectuals who call themselves "libertarian socialists" such as Michael Albert, Robin Hahnel and Noam Chomsky. I also want to remind you this is not United States Wikipedia. This is english language wikipedia and so the use of "libertarian" by anti-authoritarian anti-capitalists also exists in english speaking countries such as Britain, Australia and Canada. Finally I will have to suggest you check your very poor definition of socialism which I wouldn´t even call "vulgar".--Eduen (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Other than the last sentence, fine. Just explain all of that in the article. On the last sentence, when 200.000.000 - 300,000,000 people have a particular meaning for a term, that becomes ONE of the meanings. IMHO if you want to communicate, you will need to address that, even if just via 1 or 2 sentences that just explains the difference and that the common US definition doesn't apply here. North8000 (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

¿"Bigger government" is socialism?. Well. Let´s remember that there is statism in the right wing also and so we have fascism as well as more moderate statist versions of conservatism such as Gaullism or Christian Democracy so your definition of socialism is really really poor. Even if there were people who think socialism is a kind of fruit or a planet or a rock singer, here we have to take into account self descriptions of actual socialists and definitions that can be found in political encyclopedias and dictionaries as well as the real practice and political proposals that socialists make to societies. So in fact even some street definitions that we could get by interviewing some random people in any US city will end up being more complex than what you suggested. I bet we will get someone who will say socialism is related to communism or that it is about collective property and similar things and perhaps even someone who will say that it is about the "working class".--Eduen (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes all of those. And not just "someone" .....enough people to, by definition, make it a common meaning of the term. North8000 (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not think it is necessary to explain what socialism means. Anyway I always thought that in the U.S., liberal means "big government". TFD (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does, and so does socialism. BTW my suggestion would not require really explaining it, just noting that it is different than some common meanings. North8000 (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There are many meanings of socialism. When Morton Shulman was on the Tonight Show, he said that it meant living in a society where anyone can make a fortune. TFD (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

True, and agree that it shouldn't be gotten into here, except for something like the above quick notes. North8000 (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, the important thing here is that we are dealing here with a kind of socialism that tends to be anti-state and that is highly anti-authoritarian and that exists since at least the mid XIX century and that has been using the word "libertarian" since then (see Joseph Déjacque). And also anarchists exist in the United States since the mid XIX century also mainly influenced by Pierre Joseph Proudhon and libertarian socialists in the US have also used and do use today the word "libertarian" to describe their views as shown before. But perhaps User:North8000 has not noticed in the section "Overview" of this article an explanation of the use of the word "libertarian" in Europe in the mid 19th century as well as some lines which cite self-described contemporary US libertarian socialists Noam Chomsky and Robin Hahnel explaining the particularity of the US situation on the use of the word "libertarian" both to US and non-US readers of wikipedia. Also one refers to another prominent US libertarian socialist, Murray Bookchin.--Eduen (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I did notice that. It is good material. North8000 (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)