Template talk:Libertarian socialism
|WikiProject Libertarianism||(Rated Template-class)|
|WikiProject Socialism||(Rated Template-class)|
Should Gandhian economics really be considered a form of libertarian socialism? It seems on the whole to be more a set of economic principles rather than a fully formed economic system or theory.
isn´t that the same thing. Gandhi´s economics have been influential in anarcho-pacifism as well as other social movements such as Vinoba Bhave´s movement for land redistribution in India. Gandhi identified himself as an anarchist. That is enough to put him and his economics in the libertarian socialism camp. --Eduen (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
An expert editor wrote: "this is a fan-made flag (it is the recent creation of a Wikimedia Commons user called Pipcallas); if there is consensus in favor of a flag, at least use one that bears historical importance)"
As the designer of the "fan-made" flag in question, I agree with its removal from the series header. (I wasn't involved in its original placement.) However, the reason given seems flawed. The flag's (lack of) historical importance shouldn't be problematic. Rather, at issue may be its cultural importance to libertarian socialism. That is, a flag needn't be old to be established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkanella (talk • contribs) 21:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- philosophies dont have flags. this is original research. It doesnt need a flag because there isnt a flag. I removed it. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
It's an attempt to hijack the legitimate abolitionist libertarianism of Lysander Spooner to call his ideas "Libertarian Socialism"
Firstly, "libertarian socialism" is like saying "Capitalist communism" it's not a thing that is coherent or possible in a material reality if we're discussing systems of government where the government has coercive powers(the ability to use force, and realistically threaten the use of force). If we're discussing theoretical voluntary arrangements that exist under "Capitalism" or "limited capitalism," then fine, you could design a commune to be "libertarian and socialist" ...as long as people were free to leave, as they would be, without a coercive government to the contrary. Such things exist in the USA, for example, although the final arbiter of disputes is not the commune. ...But using "libertarian socialism" therefore means, that, as part of a political series, the label should simply be capitalism, or, if one isn't focusing on the Economic aspects of the system, but the entire system, "Individualism" or "voluntaryism."
An alternate focus would be Historical. If this is the lens Spooner is being regarded through, then Spooner belongs classed as a libertarian, liberal(classical), abolitionist, or anarchist. He can't accurately be called a socialist in any way. He purely and consistently sought to turn a voluntary profit, loved capitalism, and consistently opposed coercive government at every turn.
Now, maybe libertarian socialists willing to fill out WIKIpedia forms online are more willing to try to direct people toward their philosophy, as any striving self-righteous political entity will do. Fine. But then, let me just note that WIKIpedia is being used to disseminate propaganda instead of truth, or "something that maps to reality in a meaningful way."