Talk:Libertarian socialism

AaronS 11/19/03:

Shouldn't it be made clearler that libertarian socialism is the more traditional form of anarchism (as opposed to anarcho-capitalism), and that terms like left-anarchism and socialist anarchism are used mainly by anarcho-capitalists, and are typically viewed as misnomers?

Congratulations on the new version, it's much tighter. But perhaps it could be expanded a bit on some issues, for example on why do anarchists oppose private property but not personal possesions, why do they oppose hierarchy, etc. Daniel

From Errico Malatesta:

...an Italian libertarian socialist (anarchist).

Should we do all the libertarian socialists like this, or what? Our options are:

libertarian socialist (anarchist)
libertarian socialist (aka anarchist)
anarchist (more accurately, libertarian socialist)
anarchist (link goes to libertarian socialism, but says "anarchist")

Ah, words. -- Sam Francis

I was thinking about this too. What I did for Chomsky was

anarchist (libertarian socialist)

I don't know if that's better than the ones above. I think that "anarchist" should definitely appear before "libertarian socialist" if that's what the person called themselves. DanKeshet

That's probably the best thing: put what they call themselves first. But then, the meaning of the word "anarchist" has changed since the time of many of these people. "Revolutionary Socialist" used to mean "anarchist."

Whichever describes them best should be the link, then, but what they called themselves should come first. But of course, some, like Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin really should have a link to the anarchism page, regardless. -- Sam Francis

I've started using [[libertarian socialism|anarchist]]. For Kropotkin and the like I'm going to put see also: anarchism. -- Sam

Sounds good to me. Of course, everybody's welcome to question the organization of the pages into anarchism, l-s, a-c, etc. This is a scheme set before I did any serious work on the pages, but one that made sense to me. DanKeshet

Makes sense to me too. Not that I've ever bothered looking at anarcho-capitalism. --Sam

Some libertarian socialists say that theirs is an internally antagonistic philosophy, but that such antagonism is necessary to satisfy both the necessary liberty of the individual and the harmony of the society. Others feel that the two are symbiotic, and that the liberty of the individual guarantees the harmony of the society, and vice-versa.

Graft: Does this mean "Some libertarian socialists believe that individual liberties and societal harmonies are opposing goals that must be balanced, while some believe that they're symbiotic goals that promote one another"? (Not that this wording is better, I just want to rephrase what you said to make sure I understand.) DanKeshet

Yes, you got it. Graft

How about some pages on the history of anarchism in various countries/areas; eg. Cuba (see Cuban Anarchism), Africa (see African Anarchism), South Africa, Britain, Japan, the US, Mexico, Spain, France, Russia, etc.... (I'll find the online references for those books later.) -- Sam

Moved from anarchism page:

=== Libertarian socialism vs. Direct Democracy ===

what are the commons and the differences?

I hardly think this is an appropriate comparison: libertarian socialism is a tendency that might sometimes encompass direct democracy as an organizing principle (but not even that, necessarily). The two are, I think, orthogonal, not counterposed. Graft 18:02 Oct 16, 2002 (UTC)

What do people think about moving "libertarian socialism" to "anarcho-communism"? Personally I think libertarian socialism sounds pretty kludgy and unfamiliar, and the fact that it doesn't contain the word "anarchist" or some derivative is confusing. Furthermore I dislike "left anarchism" because it buys into left/right dichotomies that I don't think are appropriate for characterizing anarchism. So, I say we move this article to "anarcho-communism", where it will get more attention and love. Graft

How about anarchist communism, as Kropotkin would call it? I don't mind particularly; you might be right. Go for it if no one objects :) -- Sam

I only just noticed this: anarcho-communism. Somebody wrote an article on it. The only links to it are from talk pages. I think it needs to be merged into this article.

As for what to call this one: I agree that "libertarian socialism" is an awkward name, because it doesn't contain the word "anarchism", and time was that I argued for it to be moved myself. However, I get the impression that "libertarian socialism" is being increasingly widely used, to the point where it's more common than "anarcho-communism", "left-anarchism", or whatever (Google seems to back this up). That said, I wouldn't really oppose a page move. --Camembert

Suggestion: we improve this page first. The anarcho-communism page is, at present, a very philosophical view. It certainly needs to be integrated, but this page, I think, should be improved first; it needs the history and development of anarchist communism, the political and economic views, major works and movements -- along the way, that page can be integrated. Once we have a good, coherent article, we can change the name.

By the way, "anarchist communism" gets about 600 more google hits than "anarcho-communism", but "libertarian socialism" gets about 3,400 -- more than twice as much (actually, the 8th hit is this page). --Sam

Anyway, I vote for this article to be at anarchist communism or anarcho-communism -- Sam

Nice work, Graft. I think the most important thing to do now is elaborate on and clarify the parts of the word: Libertarian (or anarchist, anarcho-) is the political bit, and socialism (or communism) is the economic bit. We should make this clear, as I think these are the two central part sof the philosophy: as you've begun doing with the headings Anti-capitalism (economic) and Opposition to the state (political). I'll have a look and see what improvements I can do. I think this will be a very good page soon. -- Sam

this page seems to imply that anarchists are libertarians.

Only inasmuch as its title has the word "libertarian" in it, surely? There's nothing to suggest that in the article. "Libertarian socialism" does seem to be the most widely used term for this flavour of anarchism (see the discussion just above), and although it might be a little confusing at first, I don't see how anybody reading this article could go away with the impression that "libertarian socialists" are the same as "libertarians". --Camembert

Can we perhaps have at least an opening explanation which clarifies the difference between libertarians and libertarian socialists. All the libertarians I know are adamantly opposed to socialism and all the anarchists I know are adamantly opposed to libertarianism.

Yes, that might be a good idea. I won't write it just now (I'm rather tired), but will get round to it eventually if nobody else does (I hope somebody else does) - a sentence or two should do it. --Camembert

Done. Hope the beginning isn't too verbose. --Sam

The modern usage of libertarian to mean a particular brand of anarcho-capitalist is at odds with the historical tradition of libertarian meaning those who favor liberty - i.e., those who oppose government (restrictions on liberty). I usually distinguish these by calling modern libertarians big-L "Libertarians", and don't use the small-L "libertarian" because it is now too confused in meaning. I think we should avoid the use of "libertarian" and use "Libertarian" or "anarchist" where appropriate. Graft

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 (with some exceptions, notably Peter Kropotkin). As such, a common critique of anarchism has been that it lacks vision; anarchists would counter that this (i.e., exploration rather than predetermination) is one of its great strengths.

Can someone please explain/justify the highlighted comment above? --Sam

GE Bridger explained it rather well in his 1911 book, "It is not of concern to mesh out the legalistic details of what a future society must look like, we do not have time for such pedantic nonsense, rather we must simply plunge forward - come what may."

In essence, critics of anarchism will ask anarchists to submit a 10,000 page legal code explaining the function of their society and anarchists will avoid such dense theoretical anaylsis as such decisions cannot be made at this time, and it is best to simply trust and have faith in anarchism. Vera Cruz

Sorry, it's the bit about 'except Kropotkin' that I'm questioning. I know he set forward some more detailed visions in his books, but I'm pretty sure he also noted that we shouldn't set forward anything but suggestions for experimentation. -- Sam

I haven't read him in a while, so if that's the case you can ditch the "except Kropotkin", but I don't seem to remember him ever saying anything like that. John Henry McKay (who is not an anarcho-communist) characterizes him as strongly supportive of a planned society. Graft

I've removed the bracketed comment; the following is a quote from The Conquest of Bread, Chapter 6, where Kropotkin is talking of expropriation: "...We have no intention of tracing out the plans of expropriation in their smallest details. We know beforehand that all that any man, or group of men, could suggest today would be far surpassed by the reality when it comes. Man will accomplish greater things, and accomplish them better and by simpler methods than those dictated to him beforehand. Thus we shall merely indicate the manner by which expropriation might be accomplished...". -- Sam

libertarians are anarchist socialists? Vera Cruz

NO. "Socialist libertarian" is a name by which many Anarchists like to call themselves. It has nothing to do with "libertarian" at all. Specifically, Anarchists believe in "liberty", meaning absence of restriction, on behavior--but they also believe that the many should be free to sieze the assets of the few; i.e., they do not believe in private property. Libertarians assert that there is no "freedom" without the freedom to enjoy the fruit of one's labor unmolested. --Len.

..."Collective ownership of the means of production" applies to industrial settings, not to the workshop in your garage. (Jizzbug)

Wrong. As soon as your garage workshop exceeds a certain level of productivity, it is nationalized. Specifically, observe that you do not have the power to hire employees to work in your garage. (Len)

While there are authoritarian flavors of socialism that advocate imposing socialistic values by force, that by no means makes coercion a fundamental tenant of socialism in theory or anarchism in particular... (Jizzbug)

Wrong again: anarcho-socialism cannot exist without force. If force is not used, then I can set up a factory in my basement, sell the products, and hire workers. Boom! Ipso facto capitalism. Unless "the many" can take it away...or unless the workers can "fire me" by taking my house away and own the factory inside it...In short, anarcho-socialism must either tolerate capitalistic endeavors or it must suppress them forcibly. The nature of your quibble is only that the force is not necessarily directed from a central authority--in other words, it takes the form of mob rule.

The relevance to the article is the question which anarcho-socialists do not, but must, answer: HOW is ownership of the means of production made "public"? In other words, will capitalistic businesses be tolerated within an overall anarchistic society? (Cooperative business certainly are tolerated in a capitalist society.) If not, who will prevent them, and how? Who will seize new businesses? Etc. --Len

This exact debate is the subject of the book "The Anarchists" by John Henry McKay. Different people in the book take different stances, but McKay concludes that the true anarchist would take the stance that everyone is free to do as they like - if someone wishes to create a capitalist enclave within an anarchist society, this is entirely their choice. Anything else would not be compatible with anarchism.

Of course, given the choice, I highly doubt someone would choose to be a wage slave as opposed to participating in ownership of a factory. Especially if the majority of the people aren't using money or markets - you'd have a hard time getting people to accept your worthless currency in exchange for their labor. Graft

Please add to "the importance of force" section under "philosophy" arguments regarding the interaction/relation, if any, of anarcho-communism and force. If some people believe that anarcho-socialism cannot exist without force, then that's a point of view, and we want it in the article, attributed to those who hold that position, preferably with quotes and cites. If that assertion has been rebutted by anarcho-communist philosophers, that's also a matter of interest. -Martin

Note to graft: the comparison between "wage slave" is something of a false dichotomy. Would you rather be a peon in a highly successful company, or part owner of a company running in the red? Advocates of communal ownership of the means of production generally consider the benefits without considering the risks. (If my employer goes under, I go elsewhere while he starves.) --Len

You have a really peverted view of the world, Len. In the real world, the situation is almost exactly the opposite - employers rarely suffer shocks when companies fold, while employees must deal with the difficulties of finding employment without the benefit of a tremendous cushion of capital to tide them over in the meanwhile. Not to mention that employers rarely have their fingers in just one pie. Graft

You are obviously a college student. In the real world, son, employers often suffer shocks when their companies fold. (The vast majority do not run multi-million or -billion dollar companies, BTW.) My old boss is struggling to put food on the table since his company folded; I went on basically unscathed to a new position. My heart aches for him. Your idea of "employers" is straight out of Das Kapital, and bears little relation to the real world. --Len

Len, please take a look at this. I plan on elaborating the section on violence. Having read the frequently asked question at that link, do you have any further objections/ refutations? -- Sam

Danke. Note that I'm interested in framing the article (though I'm leery of actually touching the article itself), not in refuting anarcho-socialism. It is true that I consider the system to be thoroughly refuted, but I would like to see it make the best, clearest case it can for itself in the context of this article.

I know this, but I thought you might want to argue it out further here. -- Sam

Sam, the question whether forcible suppression of capitalism is necessary does not resolve into the question of which is more efficient. The argument can of course be made that management by committee is inherently less efficient than management by specialized experts--but that isn't the issue driving this question. The question is: Will capitalistic endeavors spring up naturally unless actively suppressed? The answer (POV) is yes, but the reason is not that capitalism is inherently more efficient: the reason is that individuals will continue to believe that they personally can do better by pursuing some individual endeavor--and some individuals indisputably can. So they will. Anarchism defines this as immoral (whereas libertarians define this as the engine of progress), and face the question: should it be suppressed? If the answer is no, then anarcho-socialists are fundamentally free-market libertarians with a personal preference for co-ops. If it is yes, then they are actually authoritarian socialists. (I am interested in pursuing this further, because I think it's relevant but I haven't the faintest how best to fold it into the article). --Len

I disagree with Sam (below). I would not consider most libertarian socialists to be "free market libertarians with a preference for co-ops". If you read the works describing participatory economics, a theoretical economic system currently popular with many libertarian socialists, it goes into great lengths about how markets themselves are undesirable and describing other methods of non-hierarchical exchange. DanKeshet

P.S. Also, please don't call anybody "son" as you called Graft above. It's highly condescending and offensive.

I don't feel particularly apologetic, under the circumstances: Mr. Graft allowed ideological generalities to drive the ridiculous conclusion that employers are unaffected by the failure of their ventures--which, to me, translates into the human terms of those employers I've watched lose everything. While innocent enough, the effect of Graft's naive views is highly offensive to ME. --Len

If that's how you want to look at it, then, yes, libertarian socialists are free market libertarians with a preference for co-ops. We advocate freedom, and we believe that that freedom would lead to people working cooperatively (not necessarily in cooperatives, but using cooperation as opposed to competition. I don't agree that capitalist enterprises will naturally spring up, and I have arguments to explain that view (though I haven't yet articulated them here!). -- Sam

No offense was meant, Sam. My point is this: if I'm allowed to build a workshop on land I own; hire people as long as they're willing, or hire out my services to anyone who wishes to buy them; sell my posessions or buy those of others, both parties being willing; give away my posessions both while living and at the time of death; then the system we're describing *is* capitalism. Nothing about capitalism forbids cooperative ownership if it is preferred.

But on the other hand: if my workshop can be taken away because it's too big; if I can't give my posessions to my heirs; if some posessions are deemed non-transferrable by law; if employing others' labor is outlawed; then we're describing an authoritarian economy--because somebody has to administer those restrictions, and oversee the use of things that individuals aren't allowed to own.

So if you really advocate capitalism, together with a belief that cooperative ownership is beneficial, then you might find that you are genuinely a free-market libertarian. Conversely, if you actually believe in certain forcible restrictions, like those mentioned above, then I think it's worth realizing that your philosophy inescapably implies the existence of a command structure--whether local or centralized--which overrides individual freedom. In short, socialism.

(Which raises the off-topic question whether anarcho-socialism actually exists, or whether it really is a variation of socialism whose adherents refuse to admit the role of command structure in their desired economic order.) --Len

I didn't take any offence, sorry if it came across that way! Don't worry, I think you'll find it difficult to offend me; it's not as if I haven't been through these arguments countless times...

You mention law and the basis of your arguments is on possessions. Neither of these exist in an anarchist society -- at least, not as we know them! Now, I think your view of this system is tainted by the fact that it has socialism in its title: as Kropotkin predicted in a letter to Lenin, authoritarian socialism has given socialism a bad name. You share a view of society with Milton Friedman, among many others. Please see User:Sam_Francis/Socialism.

Perhaps there's some insight I'm lacking, but I fail to see any possibility that the concept of "posessions" could disappear. That would mean that people actually stopped thinking in terms of meum and tuum--in other words, that they would stop wanting things. Only one person can wear a jacket at one time, so the act of posessing will persist, at least in the transient sense...but in your vision, nobody would ever say to another, "Hey, you're wearing my jacket!", or "Hey, you're eating my cake!" For this to happen would require a fundamental change in human nature. Do the anarchists have a secret which can turn everyone into monks (or at least ascetics), when 2,000 years of church effort could only draw a small minority to that viewpoint? --Len

As for possesions, this is addressed in the text of the article. Most anarchists draw a distinction between personal property ("my jacket") and shared, productive property ("this steel factory", "this 20-person farm"). Clearly, there are gray lines ("this fancy saw", "this little vegetable garden", etc.), but most anarchists don't address the gray areas in theory, preferring to leave it to the people involved to decide. (This too is addressed in the article, as theoretical vs. practical.)

This is the crux of the issue, Dan. If there is a line, over which my property ceases to be my property and is in some way withdrawn from my control, then we are actually looking at a command economy. Even if we could reset the clock at zero with nobody "owning" any real estate, for example, and all real-estate transfers forbidden, then we have a command economy: some person or group has authority, and hence ownership, of the real estate. No matter how you argue that that group is "everybody", eventually the situation crystalizes such that some subset has de facto control of that asset. Again, we are back to a command economy, or at least a multi-tiered society. The Spanish revolution illustrates this process very nicely. --Len

Also, I think it's wrong to think of libertarian socialism as an economic theory. It simply isn't one. There are economic theories (like participatory economics) that are more and less compatible with libertarian socialism, but there are many different ideas out there, and two people could agree that they're libertarian socialists but disagree on many fundamental questions of economics (like "Should there be prices?"). DanKeshet

No problem here. It is nevertheless a theory with economic implications, which are interesting in their own right. --Len

I did, in fact, start out as something of a free-market libertarian. I cherish liberty, and I want things to work so that human energy and resources are not wasted. But I saw what I gradually came to think was a better way to acheive that. And, like Tolkien, "[m]y political opinions lean more and more to anarchy..."

You are allowed to do whatever you want; whether people will help you do these things or not is another matter. I don't believe that people in this society would work for wages, no matter what you offer them. Why would they? Their needs would be met with minimum effort (after all, that is the first aim; to meet people's needs), they can do whatever kind of work they want. Everything is free. It might seem utopian, but, to be frank, I don't care. That it is utopian implies that it wouldn't 'work', but simply saying that is no argument that proves it wouldn't.

Your last point is certainly not off-topic on this page! We're talking about libertarian socialism, and your asing whether or not that can exist. Certainly an important point to consider.

Thanks for your time, Len, these discussions are definately providing raw material with which we can add to the article. -- Sam

Oh, and I'm pretty sure Kropotkin deals with this question too, somewhere in The Conquest of Bread, perhaps. -- Sam

Note that the FAQ to which you pointed me makes very painful reading: your movement would greatly benefit from a competent writer or two. --Len

I realise this; it is difficult to write an FAQ like that (which is what this is becoming). (But there are some great anarchist writers -- honest!) See me new comments on structure, below.

I've just been reading some of the problems that Len has had about Libertarian Socialism, and a question occured to me. Len seems to believe that force is required to acheive socialism. But what I don't understand is how, on a practical level, can you enforce private property "rights" without the use of force? For instance, if someone is farming a large enough area of land, they would require multiple workers to farm such land. If there is no government enforcement of property laws, what's to stop me from simply moving in to a bit of the land and start farming a portion of it myself, and how would you stop the workers from expecting that they get an equal share of the product? If you didn't give the workers what they diserved they would leave, and without property rights you couldn't possibly maintain the land yourself. On the other hand, if you were living in a particular house, why would I want to take it from you if I easily could obtain my own home. Human history has shown that Human greed only hungers for objects which are considered valuableas social status symbols. Who wants to collect as many limestone rocks as possible? Who wants as much gold as they can get? The only difference between the two is the rarity, and thus the value as percived by others. With a simple change in perspective, force is not required to maintain socialism.

Some thoughts: would it be better to have the history/development as a seperate part to the theory and philosophy? The two are intertwined, but there are advantages to seperating them. Following is an outline of the article as it stands.

Introduction: disambiguation with other philosophies and basic tenets (possibly mention more famous figures and movements).
Theory
- Anti-capitalism
- Opposition to state
- Conflict with Marxism
History
- Pre-"anarchism" period (ancient and pre-19th century)
- [What I've called] Anarchism: a new word -- 19th/20th century developments
- Influence: anarchist movements and influence

The problem I'm considering is where to elaborate on the historic background. The 'conflict with Marxism' section is one place to put the relevant history of the First International etc, but it could, of course, become quite a lengthy section (we could get into Russia, Spain, Cuba...).

So: do we definately want a 'theory' section, which will describe the ideas or libertarian socialism, followed by a history section, which will describe the origins of those ideas? Or some other format? -- Sam

This article is quickly developing, with some good input. However, it will be very long, and quite possibly will never be complete. I suggest that once each significant section -- such as the one on violence -- is developed to essay length, it can be summarised here and have its own article (like anarchism and violence). These articles should be sort of capsules -- they will complement this article and make it more succint, but will be easily readable as articles on their own. -- Sam

featured article???

This is NOT featured article material!, Whats the deal? Sam Spade 23:02, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Your objection (which seems to be based on the usage of the word Libertarian) seems to be unfounded to me. The phrase "Libertarian Socialism" predates the modern usage of the word "Libertarian" to denote anti-government capitalistic views. If anything, Liberatarian is the usurper, not Libertarian Socialism. ShaneKing 03:56, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'd be impressed to see some documentation of that. Anyways, it doesn't change what "libertarianism" means, or the fact that the word makes no sense when used in regards to this ...political philosophy? I am disputing the factual accuracy, since the title of the page is an oxymoron. Sam Spade 00:54, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, here's a page that documents the times when Libertarian has been used (http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libsoc.html ). Yes, it's obviously POV, but I think it has the facts straight (it provides references, so you can check them if you like). As for being an oxymoron, libertarian, as defined in m-w, is:

an advocate of the doctrine of free will
a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action

Given that anarchist/libertarian socialist theory is that a person can only exercise their free will in the absense of coercion from either the state or the corporation, it's obvious why they use the term.

If you wish to argue that this view is POV, I don't think you have a leg to stand on, because capital L Libertarianism relies on a similar POV stance that free will can only be exercised in the presence of strong property rights.

Besides, Libertarians have taken anarchism which was traditionally understood as an anti-capitalist theory and created anarcho-capitalism, so even if you don't accept the term "libertarian socialism" predating the Libertarian movement, it still deserves an article as a valid term that's in practical usage (5,810 google hits when searching for the phrase "libertarian socialism" and 8,440 for "libertarian socialist") ShaneKing 01:05, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Rename/redirect the article?

I think it would be an acceptable redirect. But as is, it is inherently misinformative. How would people surrender their personal property rights w/o state coercian? And besides, surrendering ones freedom is in opposition to liberty. Sam Spade 04:25, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's a complicated issue.

Most, if not all, libertarian socialists would agree that personal property is different from commercial property. While personal property is allowed under most libertarian socialist theories (eg you're allowed to have your own house), the usgae of land or property for a private commercial purpose is not. Ownership is collective of such things, not by single inidividuals or a government. However, some would say that there is no ownership, as such things can not be owned (the land belongs to all, etc). There's a diversity of views on the details.

As to how people would surrender ownership of the means of production, again, it varies. Some believe there would be a revolution, whereby the working class rise up and sieze them for everyone. Others believe that through education people will voluntarily give them up. Still others believe that property by its very nature is theft, and hence they were never validly owned by anyone in the first place.

As to surrendering freedom, there are many kinds of freedom. Libertarian Socialists generally agree, for example, that the freedom to own private property impinges on others rights to use that property. Freedom is rarely (or never) absolute, it's a matter of compromises. Libertarian Socialists and Libertarians just disagree as to where the compromises should be made.

I don't think the article is inherently misinformative. It documents the views of libertarian socialists. If you believe these views to be incorrect, then by all means, edit the article and provide refutation of them. The article needs a section that tells people why critics of libertarian socialism believe it to be incorrect.

And for what it's worth, years ago I'd started using the term "libertarian socialism" before I'd heard of the term from other sources, or even read anything about anarchist theory. I was using it to mean "voluntary and individualist socialism" (in contrtast to soviet communism, for example). So if someone can come up with the term to describe such ideas independently, I don't think it's as outrageously incredible as you claim. ShaneKing 04:42, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade's objection is based on his own view that there cannot be such a thing as libertarian socialism. However, there is; it is documented and it exists. If a better title is required (to avoid the confusion with Libertarianism, for example), then anarchist communism is a good candidate. --Sam Francis

I would only support a rename if Libertarianism is renamed (since if the word is this contentious, it violates NPOV to use it in the title in either sense). However, since I don't think that's sensible, it should not be renamed. Especially since, dispite anyone's objections that it's oxymoronic, that is the actual name used in literature about the theory. ShaneKing 00:52, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I second sam's assesment (with some reservations, as I do have other objections, with the oxymoron perhaps being the strongest) and agree with his suggestion. Shanes idea is ludicris, but fortunately there is no way that is going to happen, so I won't bother being disturbed by it. Please keep in mind, this is an encyclopedia not a mouth peice for alternate political philosophies, or POV. Sam Spade 01:48, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And as an encyclopedia, which is aiming to keep a NPOV attitude, it should call a spade a spade sam (if you'll pardon the pun). The theory is called "libertarian socialism". You're welcome to disagreee with the theory. However, that doesn't give you the right to rename the theory because you disagree with the name that its proponents have chosen. To do so is as ridiculous as renaming the article on capitalism "Ruthless exploitation of the working class". Nobody (I hope) would agree to do that, and an article on "libertarian socialism" should be given the same respect. ShaneKing 01:57, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What Shane just said is completely self-evident and sensible. I don't even know why it's an issue. Keep the real name of the theory. Besides, it's the NPOV thing to do. MikeCapone Feb 17, 2004, 02:00 (UTC)

Actually I am not welcome to disagree with the theory. Thats one of the things that this is not the proper place for. I can, and do, object to misinformation, mislabeling, and other sorts of intellectual diservices to our readers. And thats what I am doing here, and now. Sam Spade 03:45, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I meant "welcome to disagree" is the sense that you don't have to agree with the concept the article describes. For example, I don't agree with the contents of the Time Cube article, I think it's complete quackery. But it does describe a theory as it has been put forth. Therefore although I think what the article describes is a complete load of bunk, I also think the article has every right to tell it. As far as diservices go, I'd say deleting an article that accurately outlines a real, existant theory is a diservice. If you feel the article is inacurrate, edit it. If you feel the theory does not actually exist, provide an explaination as to why a google search provides many pages about it. At the moment, you're throwing terms about like "misinformation", "misleading" and "oxymoron" without providing any justification. ShaneKing 03:55, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not saying the article should be deleted. I think it would be best to merge it. Then, a redirect would be acceptable. Where to direct it to is not something I have a strong opinion about. Maybe I should make this more clear on VfD. I'll go do that. Sam Spade 04:16, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Indentation getting too deep, let me start afresh. Particuarly, in regards to the request for a redirect.

My personal view is that libertarian socialism is equivalent to anarchism (ie they're synonyms). However, I qualify this statement on a few points.

I don't consider myself to be an expert in the subject area, just an interested amateur, so maybe I don't have the depth of knowledge to make the distinction.
I admit, like most people, I don't have a NPOV when it comes to politics. Particuarly when it comes to anarchist politics, as some would describe me as an anarchist sympathiser (though certainly not an actual anarchist, for a multitude of reasons irrelevant to my point). Then again, at different times I've been variously described as a capitalist sympathiser, socialist sympathiser, libertarian sympathiser, etc. It's all relative to the observer!
Partly due to my first two points, but mainly because my tendency to support the underdog in the interests of fairness, I'd hate to see the articles merged if there is an actual difference. I feel that anarchist politics is something that few people have much awareness off, and hence it's vitally important that an educational resource like wikipedia present them well. If the page for capitalism or socialism is poor, it worries me less, as there are numerous other resources people can refer to. There is a lack of well written and neutral material available on anarchism. Most material available is written by anarchists, or their detractors, and hence is very heavily biased. SO I'd hate to kill off what could be the germ of something much needed.

Then again, unfortunately (IMO) Anarchism gives equal treatment to the socialist and capitalist ideas of anarchism. However much you feel "liberarian socialist" is an oxymoron, I can assure you my feelings are equally strong about "anarcho-capitalist". However, as discussed over on the talk page at Anarchism, it was decided that anarcho-capitalism should be considered a valid form of anarchism on the basis of the fact that they call themselves anarchists. That line of reasoning suggests that this page should stay as is too.

Then there's the problem that the Anarchism page makes liberal use (no pun intended) of the word "libertarian socialism". I'm not sure that any edits to change that wording will be accepted on that page, based on the talk history.

Then there's the challenge of the NPOV in organisation of the overall wikipedia pages. If we declare "libertarian socialism" to be equivalent of "anarchism" (using whatever sub brand of anarchism you want to call it), should anarcho-capitalist be declared equal to Libertarianism? I tend to consider those two equivalents also (both pro-capitalist, anti-government, pro-individualist movements), and using the logic that this page is redundant, then anarcho-capitalism is too. However, I'm not sure people who have worked on the page will agree to have it merged and redirected.

So I think there are significant practical difficulties in changing this page to a redirect. I'm not opposed to it per-se, but there are a lot of issues that would need to be thrashed out, across multiple pages. ShaneKing 07:49, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

VfD discussion

From Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, moved by —Eloquence 09:43, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism Complete humbug, you can review the multitude of reasons why Here and here altho they should be obvious from the title alone. I was disputing the inclusion, but apparently thats not an option any longer, due to some sort of spontaneous concensus? Sam Spade 23:50, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a featured article, and I don't see that there is any legitimate objection to it beyond Sam's believing the title is an oxymoron. I'm tempted to list military intelligence but have always hated VfD listing that are there to prove a point. :-) Jwrosenzweig 23:57, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Just because your political views mean that you can't accept such a concept, doesn't mean the article can not stay. There would be very little content in wikipedia if we deleted every article that had subject matter that some people didn't agree with. This is a well documented political theory, that predates modern Libertarianism. ShaneKing 00:55, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. The article is not only oxymoronic, but incoherent, illogical, and inherently POV. It would be POV to create an article called "The goodness of Satan" or "bitter suger" or "massless matter" and this is no different. Mcarling 04:06, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  - Here here! Perfect observation. I will additionally say that I think it would be fine to merge whatever is useful, and redirect to somewhere. I'm not expert enough on these sorts of politics to say where it should be directed to. Its not about my politics, or yours, or any of this. Its about making a usable encyclopedia entry. I'd honestly like to learn more about these politics, the problem is this junk is not teaching me anything. Its propaganda, doublespeak, unusable information in this present state. I require better than this, and I demand you make sense. Sam Spade 04:29, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    - What a doofus you are, Sam. The expression you attempted to use is "hear, hear", meaning "listen". I require better than that and I demand you make sense too, so there. BTW: Keep the article. Looks great; my regards to the authors. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:10, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  - It's not a POV oxymoron, it's describing a real political theory, that's been around since the mid-1800s (predating modern Libertarianism by about a century)! If we start deleting political and economic theories because some people do not like them, then we're not going to have much political or economic content left here. If you feel the content is of poor quality, fix it, don't delete. ShaneKing 04:32, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  - This article seems to be a semi-clever POV attack on both socialism and libertarianism, which are exact opposites of each other. It reminds me of Alan D. Sokal's brilliant parody "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" except that this article is not nearly so clever as Sokal's. Anyway, parodies of legitimate articles do not belong in the 'pedia. Mcarling 04:48, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    - It's not a parody. Libertarian socialists reject the idea of capitalism (so they're opposed to capital-L Libertarianism) but agree in individual freedom, hence the designation libertarian. They also reject state control (which is why they're opposed to forms of socialism involving a government, such as communism), but believe in the socialist principles applied by free will rather than coercian, so still call themselves socialist. It's not a joke, it's very real. See [1] for example. It's also in google directory, listing a couple of dozen pages.
      - Its real, its a really stupid joke, or at best a propaganda trick. I'm not saying its not real, I'm saying it doesn't deserve to be a page. Lets be intellectually honest, its alot more fun (an incidentally what I love about encyclopedias. Sam Spade 05:16, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  - Oxymoronic? Is that like saying that Libertarians and Anarcho-capitalists believe in freedom, when anyone can see that they obviously don't? Well that's what they claim, so as long as the wikipedia pages about those philosophies, make it clear that that's only what its adhearents think, then there's no reason to delete those pages. And by the same rational there's no reason to delete this page. millerc 22:23, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This is not a forum for making a political point. - snoyes 06:14, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Article describing a genuine political phillosophy that opponents of it seems to want to delete for purely POV reasons. The word "Libertairian" was used by socialists before beeing used by capitalists, and anyway even if it wasn't used by socialists first the fact remains that it was and is used by socialists so it should definately remain. Saul Taylor 10:47, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't understand why this page is up for VfD? The only reason I can think of is that a few people seem to disagree with it as a political philosophy. Every statement on the page starts with "Libertarian socialists believe..." which makes it obviously NPOV. As far as merging it with the artice on Anarchism, I think that the Anarcho-capitalists would object, and I think that the article on Anarchism should give an overview of all philosophies calling themselves anarchist. millerc 21:47, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  - Btw, just because some people have such a limited comprehension of political philosophies that they cannot understand why the name is valid, does not make for a reason to remove the Libertarian Socialist page. I know many evangelical Christians that claim that they can't understand atheism -- since "everyone has a God" they claim. But that doesn't mean that the atheism page should be deleted, or be turned into a strawman argument just to make some non-atheists happy. millerc
Keep of course. This predates US libertarianism by many yearsSecretlondon 22:23, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

This page must be merged

The only question is to where. I would like to hear any and all educated opinions on the differences between this and anarchism, and between this (Libertarian Socialism) and Communism. I am not an expert on this, and I am studying extensively to become one. I'm as interested as anyone, and the last thing I want is to reduce understanding. For example, I never wanted any useful information (such as the usage of this name by some) to be kept off the wikipedia, only the misinformative, innacurate title must be changed. Everything else can (and will) be edited as necessary. Any assistance would of course be appreciated. Sam Spade 10:36, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Communism and anarchism are overlapping sets. Some communists are anarchists, some anarchists are communists. Most members of either group are not members of the other however. This should not be surprising, as communism is a type of socialism, much like laissez-faire capitalism is a type of capitalism.

I do object to the section header "This page must be merged", as it appears the majority who have voiced an opinion are not in favour of any such thing. Especially since you have given no evidence that the title is misinformative or inaccurate, you've merely stated it as fact. That, my friend, is clearly POV. Convince us otherwise with reasoned arguments! We're all ears! ShaneKing 12:29, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Additionally, I should note that the talk archives from Anarchism seem to suggest that the phrase Libertarian socialism (and other aspects of that article) was pretty heavily hashed out over there. You might want to read and consider them, especially in light of what the flow on effects of renaming/redirecting this article might have. ShaneKing 12:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What is a "flow on effect"? Sam Spade 15:12, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Shane that I do not see that we "must" merge this article. It looks to me like at least half of those voting are satisfied to leave this article here, and undeleted. When that happens at VfD, we don't set about merging. Editing? Sure -- edit it to make it NPOV and accurate. But let's not move it around. And Sam, I believe Shane's phrase was meant to describe the fact that moving an established page requires rerouting dozens of redirects. If a page ought to be moved, this is a chore that must grudgingly be done. This page ought not to be moved, in my (and obviously several others') opinion, and so I don't think we need worry about the redirects at all. Jwrosenzweig 19:39, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A flow on effect is when you perform an action, it necessitates a second action. And that second action necessitates a third action. And so onn. Hence the actions "flow on" to other things. ShaneKing 00:16, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I understand that there is not concensus to do this. On the other hand, it is the right thing to do, and I will adgitate for it until it occurs. I do accept and understand that maybe it won't occur, but I feel that would be a serious loss. Allowing innacuracies like this (can anyone show me any difference between "libertarian socialism" and communism?) is simply intellectually dishonest, no matter how many support it. Sam Spade 21:39, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The most obvious difference between libertarian socialism and Marxist communism is this: Marxism argues for a dictatorship of the proletariat -- a period of government by the working class, after which government would whither away and a stateless communism would be created. Anarchist communists, or libertarian socialists, argue that the state will never whither away and must be destroyed or dismantled, and anarchy created by non-governmental institutions as soon as possible. --Sam Francis

This debate highlights an important issue that has been debated a lot over the years that the anarchism pages have existed. Should anarchism focus on libertarian socialism/socialist anarchism? This is the traditional form of anarchism, the main theory. But there are other ideas often thought of as anarchism -- individualist anarchism, anarcho-capitalism and primitivism, for example. My view is that this information should not be excluded from the anarchism page, but I am uncertain about how to deal with it there. And then, where do we describe socialist anarchism? What do we call it? --Sam Francis 22:53, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How about merging this with Libertarian communism? I can't see the distinction between the two philosophies. --pstudier 01:23, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)