Talk:Libertarian socialism/Archive 2

message: Clearly there is much controversy generated by the name "Libertarian socialism".  In a large part the problem is caused by the inverted meaning of liberal and libertarian in the US.  In the US, the name is completely confusing, because libertarian and socialist have nearly completely opposite meanings.  If you don't understand this, then you should ponder the contents of a page called "Liberal socialism".  In the US, it would be completely obvious and non-controversial.  Most other places, "Liberal socialism" is a contradiction in terms.  IMHO, this article is non-encyclopaedic if it doesn't start off by explaining this issue. RussNelson 05:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarian socialism or socialist libertarianism? 

message: Some libertarian socialists say individual liberty and societal harmony are necessarily antagonistic, and libertarian philosophy must balance the two. Others feel that the two are symbiotic, and that the liberty of the individual guarantees the harmony of the society and vice-versa.
American Heritage defines harmony: "1. Agreement in feeling or opinion; accord: live in harmony."
I don't understand the necessity of this passage. It is very vague (e.g., what does "societal harmony" mean to the reader?). Not "encyclopedic." I have removed. If someone wants to replace it with something please use more concrete terms and provide references for "some" and "others."
--Evan 12:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Societal Harmony? 

message: Under no circumstances should "Sam Spade" and people like him have sway here with this entry. He has made it clear, repeatedly, that he utterly opposes the very idea of libertarian socialism, and he has no right to determine what libertarian socialism means, and should not have change this from being a featured topic... of COURSE it is featured topic material. Libertarian Socialism is a very important idea that has been in the "background" of politics for years and is making a comeback. People who think that the word "libertarian" only belongs to capitalists know better than to pretend the word only has their personal meaning... they are arguing it is their word (and cannot mean socialism) based on their own subjective desires and predjudices and social class bias. This is like having the Fox run the Hen House. "Sam Spade" should recuse himself, or be blocked from using this forum... it makes no sense to have someone who wishes the destruction of an idea to have influence in it's definition. Such people already have the "Libertarian Party" section, and you can put across your pro-private property ideas there.
When pro-capitalists started using the word "libertarian" in the 1950s-1970s, surely it was said to be an oxymoron by everyone else in the world, but did that stop them? No. They had their chance to re-define the word, and for the most part their party is a joke, with no more chance of obtaining the presidency than the Green Party.
I also object to the way every week some new paragraph is added to the definition of Libertarian Socialism that is another consession to "anarcho capitalists" and Libertarian Party people. We do not need anyone to tell us that "libertarian" is a word used by some other people in the past, or that someone out there doesn't believe private property is bad. We don't need these disclaimers. People can look elsewhere for themselves if they want to research other perspectives. The world and history and culture is not about constructing safe, friendly "Categories"... think about it: the word "Republican" in spain means something different than "Republican" in the USA.. and the word meant something else in the USA when Lincoln was president. History writes the encyclopedia.. the encyclopedia does not write history. Libertarian socialists exist and they organize and they act. The term exists even if it means mostly the same thing as anarchism. The term exists even if the word "libertarian" has been used by some pro-bussiness politians and science fiction writers for a few decades. It exists in the context of what it means to some peopel on some part of the world and how it is used and under which there is a body of history and writing and actions. So I say now that the term shoudl and must be left alone and does not "threaten" anything, because human beings can figure things out for themselves.
But like I said, we dont need disclaimers and extra information put in or misleading terms substituted for the real ones...
Here are three examples:
a) The opposition to private property is not a "moral" opposition... morality implies an external observer who decides good and bad. The opposition to private property by libertarian socialists is rather an ethical opposition... it is ethical because it is based on real-world, here-and-now principles, and the rational self-interest of working class individuals.
b) It also does not matter if someone thinks private property being separate from personal possessions is some sort of disputable issue... what matters is that it is the position libertarian socialists hold, and other perspectives may be spelled out in other parts of the encyclopedia. We are not stupid.
c) Furthermore, I am apalled that so few philosophical individualists (like Max Stirner, Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner) are mentioned in the entry, and that individualism - individual liberty - so important to the idea of libertarian socialism, is not of central focus. Libertarian socialism is individualism for workers (whereas individualism based on private peroperty is individualism for capitalists). The clear difference between libertarian socialism and Marxist socialism is the emphasis libertarian socialists put on the primary importance of establishing as much liberty as practical and possible, as opposed to externally forced equality schemes which Marxist-Leninists are so well known for, and which always fail.
But I digress: It seems to me that these people (Sam Spade, etc.) must realize that capitalism can't stand on it's own merits, and it is perhaps not an idea based on freedom after all, because when people with another idea of freedom come along with their message put accross clearly and directly, perhaps capitalism does not stand up to it? If people like Sam Spade really believe his capitalist "libertarianism" is superior, then let it stand in comparison to libertarian socialism based on it's own defined merits, and let him try to be an honest businessman, and have him leave "libertarian socialism" be - people will then vote with their feet and decide what is better, and those of us who are libertarian socialists will find out for ourselves if libertarian socialism can work by ourselves - we do not need inserted warnings and disclaimers and all this misleading text put into the definition of our own term.
If people like Sam Spade will not leave be... if the definition of libertarian socialism cannot be made exclusively by those who understand the idea and care to even have it appear in Wikipedia, then I strongly suggest the entry be completely removed from the on-line encyclopedia, and a note left stating that Wikipedia is biased toward people like Spade, and should be regarded as their personal institution under their exlusive control.
I was the one who originally did extensive research and wrote the document on http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libsoc.html years ago, and I am appalled that an Encyclopedia entry would be decided by or influenced by people who have no interest in that entries existance and who turn it into a pathetic shadow, a ghost - a skeletal corpse of it's true self. This is NOT the way to run an encyclopedia. This is most certainly un-ethical behavior, and I can't believe this discussion is even going on. If capitalism is so pathetically weak that one encyclopedia entry, left unmolested, is actually a threat (no matter what it might say)... well, then the capitalists better either pack up and call it quits, or admit that their ideas and their system can only be maintained by lies, fraud and the threat of force and coercion, and that they need to assume control over everything, always and forever - even voluntary things and institutions.
This entry should be re-written with the concessions to libertarian socialism's detractors taken back out, and placed back as a featured article... otherwise it should be completely removed from Wikipedia as this whole venture is hopeless and doomed to be a failure - a misleading, bureacratic mess, and weak-willed journalism with no integrity.
People similar to "Sam Spade" did their best to marginalize or eliminate the similar ( see http://dmoz.org/Society/Politics/Socialism/Libertarian_Socialism/ ) section of the voluntary dmoz.org open directory web project (using the same arguments and the same tactics and siezing control of a vuluntary forum that was intended to be unbiased and authoritive), and they should not be allowed to do it here unless we all accept that Sam Spade (and anyone like him) is some kind of king or authority who has control over how we should think and what we should do.
(User: "Radical Mallard" | Fri Nov 19 22:15:43 EST 2004)
:With regard to content in the article, if you feel like you have information to contribute w/r/t the individualist tradition, please do so! This is a free encyclopedia, after all.
:And while I don't think Sam's objections are proper, the disclaimers are nothing but helpful. A large part of our audience is American, and to them, Libertarianism has a very specific definition that is quite different from libertarian socialism. It makes things clearer. taion 04:26, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sam Spade Should Recuse Himself 

message: 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)
thread_title:  VfD discussion 

message: From Page History: MikeCapone (removed the worst and most non-encyclopedic part of a pretty weak paragraph)
:How is "Criticisms of Libertarian Socialism" a weak paragraph?  It explains why libertarians consider libertarian socialism to be an oxymoron.  Without such an explanation, this whole article should be deleted.  --pstudier 07:31, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)
::I don't think the paragraph in question is so much weak, as it has grammer issues, and needs better sentance structure and such. I think I get the general idea of what your getting at, but I think were going to want the prose to flow a little differently ;) Sam Spade 07:55, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: weak paragraph?

message: "A common criticism, made especially by non-socialist libertarians, is that a free market will spontaneously arise unless it is suppressed by force. Non-socialist libertarians believe is part of man's nature to take care of himself and his loved ones. Economic activity such as trading, use of money, etc. is one way they do this.  Illegal drug trade is one example of economic activity which can not be suppressed even in prisons."
:I think the info in here is sound, but the wording can be better. I'm not really expert in this subject tho, so it would be best of one of you at least helped revise it and put it back into the article. Sam Spade 07:58, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: One problem is that almost everyone is a "non-socialist libertarian". I for example say that there are NO socialist libertarians, and that the concept is bogus (a doublespeak/doublethink for communism, much like the word "anarchism" has been twisted to become for some). But even if there are some (for the sake of argument) they are clearly few in number, and its not best to clarify everything as an opinion held generally by people who are not them. Sam Spade 08:00, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: What fun! Sam Spade 07:37, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  moved from page 

message: 'Nuff said. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:31, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don<nowiki>'</nowiki>t Feed the Troll 

message: "Adherents of capitalism or Austrian economics would argue that the distinction between "personal" and "productive" property is specious, and that consequently such paradoxes are doomed to arise regardless of the delineation chosen."
This alternative viewpoint does not provide any further understanding of libertarian socialism, thus is not appropriate for this page unless it is moved to the criticism section and reworded. - Kevin 02/24/04
Another problem is that it's not at all clear what ideology is meant by "capitalism" here -- as an ideological term, it is quite vague.
But the Austrian argument is a fair one, so I'll put the rest of the sentence in the criticism.
-- Toby Bartels 18:45, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed sentence

message: That was pretty impressive. Would you mind adding that to the article (the ideas, not the exact wording, of course)? You certainly did a better job of explaining it than the article does (if you are correct, will someone second kev's explanations?). If what you say is correct, than I think I was wrong in saying the name of the article should be changed, wrong in most of my statements regarding it, but clearly correct in saying the article does a poor job of explaining this ideology. I'm not converted or anything (one of the reasons why I work so hard is to become one of those wealthy landowners you so despise) but I see in your argument sensible reasons for using the term libertarian (I also see some questionable areas, and a need for alot more explanation, but thats what the article is for, eh?). The big 2 questions I find now are 1. is Kev correct, at least mainly, in his description of Libertarian Socialism? and 2. Why doesn't the article articulate this better? I have no shame for failing to understand before, as some of these basics were not covered. Anyhow, assuming at least one person seconds kev (at least generally) and there is no concensus that he is wrong, I remove all objections to the article w the exception of asking that it be improved so as to better express these positions and values. I can't offer much assistance in the actual writing, due to my well known ignorance of this subject, but I will definately be following this article for a very long time to come. The subject intriuges me, and honestly I havn't had so much difficulty grasping a subject in living memory. Thank you kev, altho I am annoyed w some of the POV in your statements, esp. regarding myself, you put alot of work in, and did a pretty darn good job presenting that info (esp. in comparison to the article). Sam Spade 03:15, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In answer to Dwindrims questions
# No, it isn't, but it is the place for discussing/debating what the concept means, and how the article can best explain it.
# I try pretty hard not to be hostile, altho I certainly admit to occasional bouts of grumpiness (esp. when I assume bad faith). I pride myself in my outrageous openmindedness (esp. since I'm an absolutist) and openess to alternate interpretations of data. What I am very agressive towards is what I see as falsifications, cover-ups, or patent nonsense. That's what I thought the article was.
# I agree with you, what I thought was that the article was mislabeled, and was really a friendly face for Communism. I no longer think that's accurate, but I felt so strongly that way that even despite being a die-hard Inclusionist I felt the article should be merged (I never wanted content destroyed, just so ya'all know that). Anyhow, I generally have my table pounding debates while having a beer, but your method seems pretty good to ;) Speaking of which, have you seen this? For some reason I think the NPOV policy won't be enforced if you choose to attend ;). Finially, I have something interesting to share with you all. I was reading the Quaker article when I had a eureka. One of my main questions (why would anybody share, or work for nothing?) can be answered by them. Quakers are entirely compatable w anarchism, as far as I can tell, and their system seems to work, they get along quite nicely w/o much looting or glue huffing or any of the other naughty things I generally associate w anarchism ;). Thanks for the appreciation of my progress, Toby, and I invite any and all to join me for beers (see link above). Cheers, Sam Spade 01:17, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam, you may whack me with a 2x4. On reflection, my comments were entirely POV, even phrased as (very leading) questions. Your replies tell me two things: our perspectives are far more similar than different, and you keep an open mind. Thanks. I'd love to join you at the tavern, but it's a long drive from Calgary to Dayton. Some other time, though :) BTW, WRT anarchism - I've always felt it would be the best way to run things, if we were advanced enough. The problem with anarchy is that it requires far greater responsibility than most people I've met are able to manage, and it wouldn't be unlike instituting a policy of democracy in a dayccare. It's not that the philosophy is bad, it's that the audience isn't ready. Denni 02:53, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)
I agree with Kev as well.  But would like to point out, for the sake of Sam Spade's question about why the article wasn't written better, that the article would be written better if people like Sam Spade would help out by pointing out the parts of the article which are ambiguous or not well stated, instead of hindering the process by comming to the talk page, and throwing around his obvious POV and threatening to delete the page.  Kev did a good job at explaining, but every point he made is something that can be found out easily with just a little bit of unbiased research.  A Wikipedian shouldn't have to explain everything about a particular subject to someone who's being obnoxious.  millerc 07:45, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, in Sam's defence, he's much less obnoxious now. ^_^ But seriously, Sam, it would be easier to improve these articles if your complaints were more specific. I know that sometimes that's not really possible, but if it is. -- Toby Bartels 02:00, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  wow 

message: The following text: "They oppose "illegitimate" authority based on economic and political power, and social hierarchy -- some believe that all authority based on political and economic power, and hierarchy is illegitimate."
seems to indicate that there are some libertarian socialists who believe types of authority based on hierarchy and economic and political power are legitimate.  Who and what?  As anarchists they necessarily believe that authority derived from these institutions is illegitimate.  That there are some other types of "authority" that really use a different definition of the word altogether, like "authority" drawn from respect or utility based on knowledge and skill does not indicate that coercive institutional authority is accepted by libertarian socialists.  So I've changed that sentence to reflect this. Kev 21:16, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: illegitimate authority

message: The following passage does nothing to illuminate libertarian socialist theory, as no claim contrary to its point is being made and the passage itself doesn't even deal with libertarian socialism.  And the "little ghetto" part is particularly revealing of the author's perspective.  I've deleted it, perhaps someone will want to move it to the Marxist page, though I'm sure it is already there somewhere.  "It should be pointed out that the Anarcho-Communist conventions aren't limited to their little ghetto; the dialectical thought of the revolutionary Marxists associated with Lenin and the Third International, which stressed experience and consciousness as opposed to taking a strictly economistic view of things, uses the same rudiments of thought in order to describe how classes arise and what class consciousness is."
lol, and I should hope this one doesn't even need a reason for the deletion, but the above reason applies:  "The source of all of this is a combination of 19th century Romantic philosophy, in particularly  Hegel (in addition to Kant) and  Schelling, and the uniqueness of rural Russian communities, which, at the end of Europe, possessed a backwardness which was purer than the cultivated consciousness of the European heartland. But this gets into too much history." 
In addition to being plainly POV, much of it is tangentially related at best, and that which is stated is disputable in addition.  Nothing here worth saving IMHO. Kev 22:12, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Marxism

message: Apparently one of the authors here saw fit to repeat a capitalist critique of libertarian socialism in two different places.  Since the criticism was the exact same in both instances, I have removed the one outside the criticisms section and transplanted the part of the reply that wasn't already there.  I've posted these passages here for referance:
But is violence necessary in maintaining such a society? Some people feel that anarcho-communism could only be sustained by the use of force -- many of these individuals argue that capitalist enterprises would spring up in such a society unless they were suppressed.  These critics see this as an inherent contradiction within socialistic anarchist theory: they feel that social anarchism could not be sustained without coercion, but if coercion were used, it would not be anarchistic.
Most of anarchism's adherents will start by arguing that it is force that maintains current capitalist economics and all forms of government -- the basis of the argument being that hierarchal relationships ultimately rest on force. Certainly, there are few, if any, anarchists who think that violence should play a role in a future society. Some anarchists, who have been called anarcho-pacifists, reject violence altogether.
Kev 22:30, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Critique of Libertarian Socialism

message: I just read this article. The Philosophical foundations section is totally incoherent. Libertarian Socialism and Kant??? I don't see the connection and it is poorly written besides. I don't have time to read all the discussion comments above, but based on the philosophical foundations, I suspect LS is complete crap, if you want my POV on it. I was tempted to vandalize the article, but I chose to rant here and let someone else worry about it. [User:MPS] October 12, 2004
:Personally I don't really care much for the entire "philosophical" section, but I do think that calling libertarian socialism "crap" just because you seem to have some problems with a single section is itself irrational and complete crap.  BTW did you notice that the section never stated LS had direct Kantian foundations, it only stated that there were similar methods, etc?
:So why are you so intent on hearing yourself speak, instead of attempting to better the article?  This talk page has already seen its share of irrational and poorly stated arguments for why LS is "crap".  There are no specific points about how to make it a better article by what you have stated and there's no specific criticism to put in the criticism section, and that's all that really matters.  No one gives a crap (at least I don't) if you disagree with it as a political philosophy.  Wikipedia's not here for anyone to prostyletize.
:The reason that section isn't well written is because I suppose that no one really cares.  Libertarian socialism is a very general philosophy, that has a wide diversity of opinion, and the authors here have different concerns about what should be written.  Someone wrote that section because they may have thought it was good information, but I haven't seen a major change in it since I started looking at this page about half a year ago. millerc 16:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Kantian Philosphical Foundations are a Bunch of Crap.

message: After ChuckF gets done with this sillyness, could someone remove the itallicized text from the following on the page:
:In this article, the terms libertarian socialism, libertarian communism, anarcho-communism and left-anarchism are used as synonyms, this leads to confusion in the minds of some non-political minded people as they don't reliese that these are the same things. For this reason it is perhapes better to simply call one self an anarchist or a communist.
The part in itallics is blatant POV, and non-encylopedic. millerc 07:39, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Could this be rewritten as "These terms are occasionally misinterpreted due to the general connotations of the words involved. Because of this, some libertarian socialists simply refer to themselves as anarchists or communists."? taion 10:30, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:   It should definately not stand as it is now, little more than POV speculation.  Taion's suggestion is probably a good way to deal with the info.  Kev 20:55, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text:  Concur with Kev, although would be equally ok with simply not having the comment. --Improv 01:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: I would like to see a sentance removed from page

message: You all are invited to visit and comment on a draft for a RfC on this and related articles that will eventually likely become a poll. Please remember we are not discussing the topic itself, just the suitable neutral number of issues we want to cover. --Improv 17:12, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft for a RfC on the issue 

message: (I seem to recall seeing someone raise this issue recently, but can't remember where. Now that Chuck's edit warring over ownership of the L-word has mostly ceased, I'd like to raise it here.)
Put bluntly, almost all of the content of this article is actually about anarchism. To the best of my knowledge, libertarian socialism is, by and large, a synonym for (left) anarchism. The differences, it seems to be, are in connotation and usage, rather than fundamental meaning. Libertarianism socialism, unlike libertarian communism or anarcho-syndicalism, is not a distinct branch of anarchist thinking. It'd probably be going too far to turn this into a redirect outright, but I would like to humbly suggest that most of the content here should be merged with Anarchism (which isn't as good an article, IMHO), and replaced with a shorter article explaining the background for and usage of the term.
Thoughts?
RadicalSubversiv E 05:57, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds about right to me. Theoretically, there might be a distinction between libertarian socialists and (left-)anarchists, the same way that there is a distinction between (pro-capitalist) libertarians and anarcho-capitalists (in each case, the latter is a subset of the former). However, whereas there are many free-market minarchists out there, socialist minarchism doesn't appear to be a very vital trend. Therefore, it doesn't need a very long article of its own. - Nat Krause 06:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize that the authors of this article consider Libertarian socialism a type of anarchism.  But basically the entire article just discusses general anarchism, which there is already an article on.  What makes Libertarian socialism different from anarchism per se?  Please focus on this, and perhaps the general stuff should be assimilated to anarchism.  Because as the article reads right now, one gets the strong impression, basically repeated over and over, that Libertarian socialism is just a synonym for anarchism.  If this really is the case of course, then there is no point to a separate article.  Please explain the differences, as you understand them.  Thanks.--Pharos 02:25, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I would be careful about merging any content.  Libertarian socialism is considered as a synonym of anarchism by many people, but IMO libertarian socialism is not the same as individualist anarchism or primitivism.  Both individualist anarchism or primitivism are parts of anarchism (but not part of LS), although both are smaller movements than libertarian socialism. millerc 21:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by individualist anarchism. Primitivism has a very tenous claim for fitting into the broader anarchist tradition (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc.), but to the extent that it does, that's the libertarian socialist tradition. RadicalSubversiv E 06:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Individualist anarchism.  Primitivism does fit into the broader anarchist tradition, I'm not disputing that, but is it libertarian socialism?  Noam Chomsky claims to be an intellectual heir to classical liberalism (which honestly, in the USA, Canada and Western Europe we all are to some extent), but that doesn't make the libertarian socialists that have intellectual ties to his work liberals, nor does it even make Chomsky a liberal. millerc 22:47, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Anarchism is a philosophy calling for the absence of government.  Socialism is a philosophy calling for the absence of capitalism, or the presence of an egalitarian social order.  Libertarianism is a philosophy calling for the presence of liberty, or the absence of restrictions on it.  Different people may mix and match any of these, or else proclaim one or more of them to be incompatible with one another.  You can't regard any of them as either synonyms or antonyms of any other.  Dtobias 22:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anarchism means absence of rulers; anti-statism, is a philosophy calling for the absence of government. millerc 05:42, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For (pro-free-market-capitalism) libertarians , those are the same thing. - Nat Krause 06:34, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant that the definition is too narrow.  AFAIK anarchism to an anarcho-capitalist is extreme anti-statism, but it means more to others.  For instance, I know much of our disagreements center around capitalism, but many anarchists are also anti-religion (at least religions that claim salvation through a certain person or institution).  Christian anarchists don't believe that "earthly" institutions have divine authority, and that makes them part of the anarchist tradition. millerc 22:47, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Anarchists are anti-statists, in that they rejecting the state as an institution excercising hierarchical authority. Many do distinguish between the state and government (i.e., formal social organization) in the broadest sense. RadicalSubversiv E 06:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Alternately, text could be moved here from anarchism, accomplishing the same reduction in redundancy. This might be better. I am now picturing the situation as a Venn diagram where the circle for "libertarian socialism" is almost entirely inside the circle for "(anti-capitalist) anarchism", and the circle for "(anti-capitalist) anarchism" is   mostly within the circle for "libertarian socialism", but has significant portions that are outside of it. - Nat Krause 06:34, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure about this, though I think your basic rationale is reasonable: anarchism is a slightly broader term. However, anarchism is by far a more common one. Better to have an explanation of the differences in connotation here (which aren't very clear cut), and point readers to anarchism with that as a caveat. RadicalSubversiv E 06:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why here, and not [[Anarchism]]?

message: I think we should look at this from a more historical perspective, starting with socialism. Remember that socialism is (even when imaginary and used for propaganda purposes) the emancipation of the working class and often other oppressed groups.
Early on there was a rift in the socialist movement between those who wanted the state to provide this from above and those who wanted the people to create it from below. The former was implemented after the Russian Revolution and others, and is generally referred to as communism or authoritarian socialism.
The latter was held onto by a varied group, but they are all opposed to the authoritarian aspect of the former. The opposite of authoritarian is libertarian. Now we ask how these groups justify the coexistence of liberty and the emancipation of the working class. Well, one way is through reformist governments with democratic socialism, held by many modern first world politicians, and people like George Orwell. Another way is through  non-coercive direct action such as strikes, sabotage and boycotts, prevalent as the left-wing of anarchism. Both of these are subsets of libertarian socialism. Here are my proposed sets, it's just a matter of deciding which are linked pages and which are subheadings.
*Socialism
**Communism/Maoism,Leninism, et al (authoritarian socialism)
**Libertarian socialism
***Left anarchism
***Anarcho-syndicalism, etc
***Democratic socialism
Anarchism was originally only a subset of socialism, but many modern capitalists also call for abolition of the state. As there is no difference in government, they are only politically different because they believe in different extra-governmental organisation. Traditional anarchists argue for workers to organise from the grassroots and make capitalism impossible by exercising choice through trade unionism, boycotts, etc. Anarcho-capitalists don't want that.
*Anarchism
**Left anarchism/traditional anarchism (also under socialism)
**Anarcho-syndicalism (also under socialism)
**Anarcho-capitalism (also under libertarianism, capitalism)
Anarchism (absence of state) could be seen as extreme libertarianism by libertarian's general definition, however it is now skewed by the modern political climate, so some disambiguation is needed on the page. Maybe it should even be a disambiguation page. It originated in liberalist philosophy such as Kant's moral theories and subsequent writings on human rights, and Tom Paine and early American democracy. Libertarianism encompasses all systems focusing on freedom and rights, so is shared by parties such as the Greens, Libertarians, and Democratic Socialist Parties, by people such as Milton Friedman and Noam Chomsky. The key factor is democratic systems and/or levels of state control. Even governmental economic subsidies can be seen as "positive freedoms" (free education, etc) claimed by philosophers such as John Rawls.
*Libertarianism
**Libertarianism (philosophy)
**Libertarianism (modern/capitalist)
***Anarcho-capitalism
**Libertarian socialism
***Left anarchism
So my conclusion is that libertarian socialism should be kept but only as a reference to historical political divides in for example the First and Second Internationals and an intermediate to democratic socialism and (left) anarchism. --Szorko 14:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Sets 

message: From what I can see on the talk page, the inane disputes over whether "libertarian socialism" exists ended a couple of months ago, but the article can still use some work.  I think  would be more appropriate.Dave 17:52, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
:  Actually the accuracy dispute tag was added about 9 days ago, as the about discussion indicates.  It seems to be a disagreement over whether or not "libertarian socialism" includes ideologies that are not anarchist.  Regardless of the merit of various positions, I think the phrase is sometimes used to describe non-anarchist positions, and further there is nothing inherent in the words themselves that indicates anarchism, so I don't see the accuracy dispute tag as necessary.  However, I think Radicalsubversiv feels strongly about this issue in a way that I don't, so he might not agree with removal of the tag.  Kev 20:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing neutral banner to cleanup banner

message: I noticed the edit war, and I thought it might help if an outside party offered a compromise.  The Somalia article seems to be relevant, and it's important that the critics' viewpoint is fully represented.  This is an article about libertarian socialism, not for libertarian socialism.  On the other hand, it's probably bad to let the criticism section get too bloated--the "criticism of libertarianism" section was 1/3 of the whole article at one point, which was clearly too much.
A good compromise would be to put in the link as evidence for the claim that "Typically, non-socialist libertarians believe that a capitalist economy is natural, rather than artificial, so it would naturally develop in the absence of regulating factors," but not to mention Somalia in the text.
If the link gets put in, it should link directly to the PDF file, not to the Google cache of it, which will quickly become a broken link.
I hope this helps, 
Dave (talk) 21:08, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
:  This would be a good compromise if not for two things.  First, any attempts to provide evidence for anarchist criticisms of anarcho-capitalism in the anarcho-capitalist article were removed, and in fact atm almost all of those criticisms have been removed to an entirely separte article, so a double standard is being used here.  Second, the Somalia example is not on the surface evidence for their claim.  It is highly disputed that Somalia is anarcho-capitalism, or any kind of anarchism, even some anarcho-capitalists deny this and the vast majority of anarchists believe it is more akin to feudalism given the large number of warlords claiming small state-like territories.  I hardly think that a highly questionable piece of evidence that supports a different ideology is appropriate to put here.  Kev 22:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has nothing to do with what goes on in the anarcho-capitalism article. You know, you come across as very immature and petty. RJII 23:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   As with several other talk pages, you seem totally uninterested in constructive dialogue.  I've made my case, until you have something to add I will ignore you.  Kev 01:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Why does it need a source when the vast majority of anarcho-capitalist claims in any article aren't sourced?  No one is contesting that they believe this, let it lie.  Kev 05:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  compromise on the somalia thing 

message: This is a great article.  As far as I can tell, it was removed from FA status because of the political sentiment of a singe, dedicated individual who seems to equate 'Socialism' with the Soviet Union.
Sam--
Socialism at it's most basic level is the democratic control of the 'means of production' (ie. factories, land, etc.) State control by itself is not socialism. For this reason, the Soviet Union was 'Socialist' in name alone. Real socialism is radically democratic. For an example of such a vision in practice, please read the Anarchism in Spain article. Harris0
I agree. CJames745 12:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So do I, this is a really good article, how do you go about making it a featured article?Felix-felix 13:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Should Be A Featured Article 

message: I have added the following:
That is, anarchism arose as a cross between socialism and liberalism, incorporating the anti-capitalist attitude of socialists and the anti-statist, or libertarian, attitude of liberalism. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who is often considered the father of modern anarchism, coined the phrase "Property is theft!" to describe his affinity for the labor theory of value, a socialist value. At the same time be believed that goods should be traded in a free market (one not under constraint of government) where money was replaced with labor notes which held value in terms of labor rather than supply and demand. A free market is a liberal value.
For this reason libertarian socialism is synonymous with anarchism. However, libertarian socialism has developed a more political connotation while anarchism has grown into a much wider and more philosophical set of ideas. Since mainstream circles equate anarchism with opposition to the state, an idealogy known as anarcho-capitalism has come about which would not fall under the category of libertarian socialism. The phrase has therefore taken on a more leftist tone. In addition, some prefer the name because anarchy is often equated with chaos and can be a confusing word to use in political theory.
I think that more information wouldn't hurt in the political roots section, so long as it is concise. I felt it was important to clarify the relation of libertarian socialism to anarchism, despite the implicit equivalency between the words in this article. However I think a little more information about the origins of both anarchism and the term libertarian socialism is in order. CJames745 12:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded Political Roots Section 

message: I'd like to see some sources that claim mutualism is libertarian socialism. I find that really odd, since it's anti-collectivism in property. RJII 05:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: mutualism

message: The debate on whether this should be a featured article or deleted is pretty intense. I don't pretend to be an administrator and I admit to being a libertarian socialist but you may want to get a third party in here to help rsolve this debate once and for all before it gets any worse.--Acebrock 18:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  third party resoultion? 

message: "For this reason it is accurate to say that libertarian socialists favor the labor theory of value over the subjective theory of value. This means that, to an anarchist, objects have a value associated with them based upon the amount of labor put in to them. As such, the only way profit can be produced is by paying workers less than this value or by charging consumers more than this value. Capitalists, on the other hand, believe that an object's value is determined by supply and demand. Despite this preference, not all libertarian socialists would argue that the labor theory is any more concrete than the subjective theory, simply that it is more fair."
I think it's a little too generalizing about what libertarian socialists are supposed to think. It counterposes a "labour theory of value" to a "subjective theory of value" when it seems more logical to contrast 1. an "objective theory of value", a category that includes the LTV, plus others like those of Sraffa and Veblen, 2. an "intersubjective theory of value" and 3. a subjective theory of value. I've also noticed that some libertarian socialist economists do not think that the LTV and certain marginalist insights are incompatible, and one Japanese anarchist philosopher argues persuasively that Marx consciously took a transcritical position between Ricardo's LTV and Bailey's STV. Also the paragraph omits the fact, noted by Marx against Lasalle, that labour is not the sole source of value, nature itself is a source of value; therefore it's not quite true to argue that profit only comes from under-reward of the worker's contribution. A society that ignores the contribution of nature is bound to exploit it. BernardL 23:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments about this paragraph 

message: I've restored the section on mutualism, as I can find no evidence of consensus against it. The recent removal seems to have been a reaction to the addition of a short bit on agorism. Both An Anarchist FAQ and the Mutualist FAQ consider mutualists socialists. Libertatia 22:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mutualism redux 

message: I added a bit to the criticisms section, and broke it up for easier reading.
Salvor Hardin 04:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worked on Criticisms