Talk:Libertarian socialism/Archive 3

message: The first thing I saw when I looked in this article was Libertarian Socialism is an oxymoron. I went to edit it but I couldn't figure out how. Intolerable! Someone please fix it. I'm sick and tired of "libertarians" vandalizing this page.
69.123.9.255 19:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism and editing without explaining changes 

message: Grrr. The entire section on Historical origins - a quite long section indeed - refers not to libertarian socialism but instead anarchism. The entire thing seems incoherently misplaced. Proudhon knows this article is lost, lost beyond return! Jobjörn 22:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why oh why does it deal with [[Anarchism]] and not Libertarian socialism? 

message: Before I continue editing the new version of this article, I think this needs clearing up. What is the case;
* is Anarchism a strain of Libertarian socialism (as stated in the article on Libertarian socialism),
* is Libertarian socialism a strain of Anarchism (as indicated in the sections on Historical origins in the article on Libertarian socialism),
* or are the terms Anarchism and Libertarian socialism virtually synonymous (as pointed out on the rest of the internet, such as here on flag.blackened.net)?
This is very confusing indeed.
With regards, Jobjörn 22:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is (A) a strain of LS, is LS a strain of (A), or are (A) and LS synonyms? 

message: These are mostly taken whole-cloth from the anarchism article, they partly reproduce stuff from the Political Roots section, and vast swaths of them make no reference to LS specifically.  I think they should be deleted outright.  Objections?  Bacchiad 14:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. You are doing a great job. Thank you! -- Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 18:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Roots and Anarchism Today section 

message: Is it time to remove the tags? I noted that the honorable mr User:Bacchiad did so, only to have this reverted by User:Bookandcoffee, and then again re-reverted by User:128.220.50.2. Not wanting to involve myself in an edit conflict, I do believe it is time to bring it here. Should we remove the tags? I think that yes, we should. And archive the talk page, to restart the discussion regarding the article. Possibly re-add the tags again if we find further problems. Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 00:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to remove the tags? 

message: Should we remove the anarchism template? We (by we, I really mean User:Bacchiad, with at least my blessing) removed most of the anarchist content already, it feels kind of out of place, especially as Libertarian socialism isn't on the template. What do you say? Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 00:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the Anarchism template? 

message: Hi PatriotFirst,
You wrote:
::Like I said, there There is no such thing as libertarian socialism. It is like saying.. The wind was blowing, but it was a calm windless day. Or it is like saying a typically (socialistic) thing like the phrase positive discrimination. I love that one. If you ask me a question in a friendly tone, I will answer it thus. PatriotFirst 20:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Bacchiad, thanks for your input and explanation. It was very well written and explained. I'll admit it brings up points that I hadn't considered, like the possibility of actual ownership of production by the people, rather than the usual pretend one, where a small elite group does the real owning. I'll have to do some research and thinking on this. I apologize to the editors of this article for assuming stuff that wasn't true. PatriotFirst 18:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Bacchiad, don't miss out on this, this, and this. Many similar threads have been archived. Posted on my talk page by Bishonen... Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 21:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affirmative Action: A Case-Study on Libertarian Socialism 

message: The libertarian socialist is at base a quiet yet diligent person, always amiable; an ethical person, a leader through practice, clear observation and lucid analysis, who knows when,where and how to shout; and who to shout at; and who probably has a strong tendency to hug trees, animals, people, and the sun and stars.BernardL 01:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murray Bookchin:Libertarian socialist 

message: I have removed the following sentence to talk for discussion.
"Libertarian socialism has been described as anti-capitalist individualism."
Because of the following problems I do not think it should be included in a paragraph defining libertarian socialism:
1. it says lib-soc "has been described" but no reference is provided for this statement.
2. It is much too narrow a definition because libertarian socialism has traditionally meant opposition to all forms of illegitimate oppression whether in the socio-economic sphere (capitalism), the cultural sphere (organized religion, racism), the kinship sphere (patriarchy) or importantly in the political sphere (illegitimate state hierarchies). For example Bakunin made strenuous efforts not only to oppose capitalism, but also organized religion and the state. As libertarian socialism evolved in the 20th century, it was typically described as a tendency of thought opposing all forms of illegitimate oppression and therefore the project of libertarian socialism had a limitless future extending beyond the historical boundaries of capitalism. There are also numerous expressions of libertarian socialism as exemplifying the transcendance of the individualist/collectivist dichotomy (cf: Castoriadis) rather than merely an anti-capitalist embracing of individualty.
BernardL 20:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-capitalist individualism too reductionist 

message: Lots of the ext links are about anarchism rather than specifically about libertarian socalism. I am removing the former and ading more of the latter. However, I am archiving those I'm removing here, so people can put all/some back after reflection/debate.
*An Anarchist FAQ—Provides useful information on the theory and history of anarchism
*"Anarchism", from The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1910.
*The History of Anarchism by Brian Crabtree (1992)
*Anarchist History—Anarchist Archives
*The Anarchist Encyclopedia list several hundred anarchists
*The Anarchist Timeline lists 2500+ dates with events & resource links
*Infoshop.org is an anarchist newswire and information service
*A-Infos Anarchist News Service
*Anarchist Archives
*Smygo News & Views for Anarchists & Activists.
BobFromBrockley 12:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: :I don't know. You tell me. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't what?Sjeng 20:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why don't we 

message: The problem with "libertarian socialism" (the article, not the concept) is that people are very keen to discover that the word is an oxymoron (this seems to be the genesis of one of the "lamest edit wars ever", which brought me to this page.) We really, really need to find some sources for the criticism here. Sdedeo (tips) 01:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism section 

message: I cannot believe people are trying to say that libertarians oppose capitalism. Are you kidding me? One of the biggest aspects of libertarianism is the desire fore laissez-faire capitalism. If you don't believe me, just go to www.lp.com or www.libertarian.ca and take a look at their platforms. Also libertarianism is NOT a synonym for anarchism. Libertarians generally hold contempt over anarchism as much as say, communism. Finally, libertarian socialism is a contradiction, as libertarians hold property rights as VERY important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.251.232 (talk) March 19, 2007
:Wikipedia is NOT a discussion forum. Do you have any complaints about the article itself? See  WP:NOT (Original Thought) for policy on discussion forums. You may disagree with the ideology, but that has no concerns in Wikipedia. If you have references to prominent qualified individuals who feel Libertarian Socialism is a contradiction of terms then feel free to add mention of them, along with a reference. Here is the Wikipedia policy for citing sources:  Citing Sources on Wikipedia. But they have to be prominent (scholarly, credible) libertarians, economists, political scientists, or another similar field. Don't quote your friends blogs. I also recommend creating an account - it will give you more credibility when adding to articles.  --Jelligraze 14:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarians are NOT anticapitalists 

message: Hello there folks. Recently, Josephholsten edited the article so that it now includes . I oppose the inclusion of this template, because
# The article already includes two "Politics series on"-templates, the one on Socialism (where Libertarian socialism prominently appears) and the one on Anarchism. Having three of them is just... too much.
# The Libertarianism article and template deals exclusively with right-wing libertarianism: the Libertarianism article has a notice at the top reading This article is about the individualist philosophy, which is supportive of private property. For other uses (including political parties associated with libertarianism) see Libertarianism (disambiguation). The only exception is left-libertarianism, which seems to deal primarily with agorism, an anarcho-capitalist ideology. The relation of the template to this article is as thus minimal if any.
Comments? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose inclusion per Jobjörn. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 09:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment Not sure. I think the libertarianism article (and its template) is deeply flawed precisely because it more or less denies that there is such a thing as left libertarianism or libertarian socialism. The left libertarianism article is even worse, as it reduces left libertarianism to a couple of bizarre crackpot anarcho-capitalist theories that most left libertarians haven't heard of. Given this, the template on this page feels wrong, but if those issues were addressed, then I might be more inclined to let it be there. BobFromBrockley 11:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll remove it for now, re-insertion should be considered when the issues mentioned by Bob above have been addressed. "bizarre crackpot anarcho-capitalist theories" is phrase of the day. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Libertarianism 

message: #I removed the following: "The most popular web newsletter, which purports to hold libertarian socialist values is Dissident Voice." This is partly because its web popularity is an uncited claim, and more importantly because it does not purport to be libertarian socialist but as "radical" (and, indeed, some of its writers, like James Petras are Marxist-Leninists...
#I changed the list of "prominent anarchists and libertarian socialists" to simply the latter, as that is what this page is meant to be about. BobFromBrockley 12:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two changes 

message: I suggest we merge the two pages, using the structure of this article and the title of the other article because (1) we can't really discuss left-libertarianism (in general) without discussing libertarian socialism (in specific), (2) the LL article covers two minor traditions, but can't relate these to each other without relating these to LS (as well as RL), (3) merging these would work better than disambiguating these to each other. Jacob Haller 06:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer this solution. I guess the question is: is there such a thing as left libertarianism that is different from libertarian socialism, apart from the two minor and very specific theories the left lib article currently refers to? If there is, then the LL article needs re-writing; if there isn't, then the LL article should be turned into a disamb page. BobFromBrockley 13:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Can we remove the merger box things now? BobFromBrockley 15:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we Merge this page with [[Left-libertarianism]]? 

message: Although many people argue that libertarian socialism and social anarchism are the same thing, it is important that this article is clearly about libertarian socialism. There are a number of places the article doesn't do this. For example:
The non-violent anarchist movement today consists of organizations such as BAAM, Food Not Bombs, or Anarchist Black Cross.The first of these I don't know what it is; the other two do not define themselves as libertarian socialist. I'm deleting this. If someone can find better examples, put em in. BobFromBrockley 14:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchism/libertarian socialism 

message: An earlier editor used the term collectivism in its Randian pejorative sense. Many readers will interpret the term collectivism in its libertarian-socialist sense, i.e. to refer to Bakunin's and similar systems. It may as well be in another language. Can anyone go through the criticisms section and clean up the mess? Jacob Haller 22:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms Section Incoherent 

message: The article currently states that "Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who is often considered the father of modern anarchism, coined the phrase "Property is theft" to describe his view on the nature of ownership in relation to freedom." Both Vision Thing and muself have expressed issues with this charactization of Proudhon's views. I suggest including, sourcing, and addressing the other statements, and discussing Proudhon's general view of property and possession. Jacob Haller 01:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should probably try to work up a standard paragraph to treat this wherever it comes up. The problem is that "property is theft" remained his belief to the end, but, from the beginning, he associated liberty with some balancing of property with countervailing forces ("communism" early and government later). In the past, I've encountered opposition to including mention of the "antimonies" and Proudhon's dialectical approach, but there really isn't any other way to succinctly cover the ground if you don't mention that aspect. Libertatia 18:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have taken a couple sentences from the Proudhon article and transplanted them here to further clarify his views.  I've also qualified the sentence about theft and indicated that his position was "complex".  I figure further exploration should probably take place in his article or the mutualism one.  Please rewrite it if you think its still lacking. Etcetc 06:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Property is Theft/Freedom/Improssible 

message: I've reverted the series of edits adding this article to featured status; ArticleHistory shows clearly it is not a Featured article, it failed twice, and in its current state, it would likely be a snowball fail if presented at WP:FAC today.  Articles are only promoted to featured status by the Featured Article Director at WP:FAC after an extensive community review;  I suggest thoroughly citing the article, then a peer review, followed by a nomination to WP:GAC before approaching WP:FAC.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The FA removal was (1) proposed due to certain editors' political opposition to libertarian socialism (see the archived discussion from this page) and (2) forced through without consensus despite Wikipedia policy. Jacob Haller 04:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if that's true, but it's not relevant.  The article failed a subsequent FAC, and wouldn't pass FAC (or even GA for that matter) today.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its latest candidacy failed and that's all that's relevant here. A three year-old edit war over its status (when the FA process was much more loose) is no reason to unilaterally promote it now. Marskell 12:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not FA 

message: This paragraph needs to be tightened up so that it reads less like editors opinion and more like an encyclopedia.  In addition it is entirely unsourced, and I can't come up with adequate citations for it.  I'm removing it to here until someone can fix it better than I can.
 However, libertarian socialism has a more political connotation, while anarchism has grown into a much wider and more philosophical set of ideas. Some individuals no longer consider anarchism to refer to anything more than the absence of the state, consequently an ideology known as anarcho-capitalism has come about which would not fall under the category of libertarian socialism. However, non-capitalist anarchists view anarchism as a wider opposition to all forms of authority and not simply the formalized government. The phrase therefore has more of an anti-capitalist tone amongst most people whereas the term "anarchism" has a philosophical tone. In addition, some prefer the name because anarchy is often (incorrectly) equated with chaos or lawlessness and can be a confusing word to use in political theory. Further, libertarian socialism includes currents of thought that argue for a minimal state, rather than for no state. 
:[This suggestion was made by EtcEtc] I agree with this. It is an incoherent and un-encyclopedic passage. BobFromBrockley 09:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed paragraph 

message: Though this article was improperly removed from FA status in the first place, a subsequent attempt to reintroduce it failed in part due to its supposedly being "too long".  This is odd, since many FA articles are much longer, but on way to reduce the size of the article would be to move the criticism section to its own page.  I'm pursuing this particular tactic because it was done for another FA, one that Sandy and Marskell have both voted on, so I assume its exactly the kind of thing they would want to see done.
In addition, that one section seems plagued by an edit war sponsored by Vision Thing and a lot of various now-banned sockpuppets, I'm sure they would hate to see a wiki article ruined by their own personal biases concerning the subject matter, and all of them have been fine and dandy with the same solution being pursued in the anarcho-capitalism article.  So in brief there are three reasons for this move:
1. It fits the profile of a FA that people currently objecting to this page both voted on
2. It solves the length problem
3. It moves the warring off this article  Etcetc 21:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not too long.  It is 33 KB of readable prose, calculated by Dr pda's prose size script, which is completely in line with WP:LENGTH. What the article urgently needs — if you're trying to aim towards FA — is to be cited.  Further, POV splits of criticism are discouraged.  Jimbo himself once said that criticism should be woven into the text to avoid POV splits; you can find that somewhere on the talk page of WP:Criticism.  I doubt that exorcising criticism from the text will make it by WP:FAC.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By exorcising criticism, you saved only 3KB in prose size — not a significant change, not needed.  The real problem is seen right here (numbers after criticism was removed):
*Prose size:  30KB
*References:   1KB
The article is uncited.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The length was only one of the reasons, if the article is not too long then I suppose that is yet another reason it should not have been removed from FA status.  Again, I'm just trying to  use a model that you and Marskell clearly feel is worthy.  As you can see, I didn't actually "exorcise" the criticism section, I merely removed all the arguments that were unsourced editorialism and kept the single argument that was actually cited (albeit indirectly).  The problem with the criticism section is not that it is POV, criticism usually is, it is that all the criticisms were being made up on the spot by the editors rather than researched and cited.  Etcetc 01:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section (2) 

message: 1st Paragraph:
# Can anyone identify sources for the definition? For the means? For the extension from political philosophy to a wider perspective? As it is, the only citation is for the quote at the end.
# It is possible to "abolish private property" without giving direct control of the means of production to the working class. Look at certain Marxist and Bellamyite ideas. Moreover, this definitely excludes Spooner's propertarian anarchism and Spangler's socialist agorism, and sidelines mutualism.
2nd Paragraph:
# Can anyone identify sources? Probably the same ones as for the 1st paragraph.
# Can we discuss what these means have in common, e.g. most are voluntary, many are decentralized?
3rd Paragraph:
# Can anyone identify sources? Jacob Haller 23:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found a source for a definition very close to the one in the intro, so I reworked the intro a bit to more conform to the source.  Its not perfect, but it should work till someone finds something better.  Etcetc 02:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I've found a source for "the means" part.  Its old and in spanish but it seems to fit the text pretty well, I reworked it just a bit.  Etcetc 03:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: In order to account for the objection that private property can be abolished without giving direct control to the working class I changed the sentence to reflect that this is the purpose of the abolishment, rather than the sole method.  I also changed the "giving" to "gaining", since libertarian socialism is not a vanguard ideology.  Finally, I changed "other unpropertied classes" to "society as a whole" since the former seemed unwieldy and the later a little more comprehensible to folks lacking a marxist rhetorical glaze.  Etcetc 03:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I found a nice Rudolf Rocker quote for the 2nd paragraph.  Its makes reference specifically to the anarcho-syndicalists of spain, and then to anarcho-syndicalists in general finding their strength in trade unions rather than in political parties.  It would be nice to find another quote that demonstrates the same for other decentralized organizations and other forms of libertarian socialism.  Etcetc 03:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The Richard Porton source refers to William Reichert tying together Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Tucker all under the umbrella of libertarian socialism.  I figure that covers anarcho-collectivism/communism/individualism all in one swoop, and mutualism by extension since it is a form of individualism, so I'm not going to bother sourcing each and every one.  Etcetc 03:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I found a referance for social ecology as well.  Etcetc 04:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductory Paragraphs

message: I can't seem to find any source for these as being a form of, rather than simply related to, libertarian socialism.  I know of heard of council communism in particular referanced in discussions and forums, but I can't seem to find it in the literature.  If someone does find a referance please pop them back into the article, other than those two all the ideologies are now cited.  Etcetc 04:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would see autonomism as libertarian communism, but not libertarian socialism, as many autonomists have written critiques of socialism. BobFromBrockley 17:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Council communism and autonomist marxism 

message: Most of the previous discussion on "libertarian national socialism" should be deleted altogether as it has nothing whatsoever to do with improving this article.  The talk page is not a forum for the general discussion of libertarian socialism and/or related topics.  The specific purpose of the talk page is for discussion of the article.  All the rest is trollspam, and should be treated as such. ---Cathal 15:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page is not a forum 

message: In my attempt to source this article I found the following statement "Others, however, have advanced strong critiques of federated systems, and these federations have rarely been carried out in practice."  I do vaguely recall hearing a lot of these criticisms years ago, primarily from post-leftists and a few primitivists.  However, I'm not sure they are routinely considered libertarian socialists, and anyhow I don't know where to look for this criticism.  Could someone provide us with a source?  If it comes from libertarian socialists we can put it back in the main text, otherwise we might want to move it to the criticism section.  Etcetc 21:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source? 

message: A couple weeks ago I asked for a source concerning council communism as a form of libertarian socialism.  I still can't find any such source myself, though I suspect one does exist somewhere.  I'm finding it difficult to come up with sources for the section on council communism, and the wiki page on council communism is also bereft of sources.  I'm tempted to remove the section and place it on the discussion page until it can be properly sourced, but before I do that I'd like to wait another week or so and see if anyone can come up with some decent sources for that material.  Any takers?  Etcetc 03:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chomsky, in Chomsky on Democracy and Education, writes, "May 1968 in France of course accelerated the growing interest in council communism and similar ideas, other forms of libertarian socialism, in France..." (p. 133). Libertatia 16:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   Great, I can use that for a source earlier in the article and put council communism back in.  Will still need more sources for the section on council communism though, if you can find those as well.  Etcetc 22:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted, of course, that Chomsky diverges from strict anarchist doctrine and theory in multiple ways, by advocating strengthening of state social programs and electoral participation. 71.103.97.189 (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Council Communism