Talk:Libertarian socialism/Archive 3

Vandalism and editing without explaining changes

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)

On 12 January an unregistered user cut out the following text (in bold):

Libertarian socialism includes a group of political philosophies that aims to create a society without political, economic or social hierarchies - a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. This would be achieved through the abolition of private property, thereby giving direct control of the means of production and resources to the working class and other unpropertied classes.

I believe it was better before. Does anyone agree? I would like to restore it to the previous state, but before doing that I am willing to hear the arguments for the changes, if there are any. --Lynxmb 15:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Major structural problem in the article

This article starts off with a discussion of the roots of "libertarian socialism" in the 19th century anarcho-syndicalist movement and the political thought of 19th century revolutionists such as Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin. Yet "libertarian socialism" is a much newer term, and arguably a neologism. "Libertarian socialism" is a term used by much more recent authors to classify the ideologies of a set of 19th century socialists and anarchists who did not classify themselves as "libertarian socialists."

The article should begin with a discussion of the much more recent political thinkers who coined and popularized the term "libertarian socialism," and then work its way down to a discussion of why they regard 19th and early 20th century anarcho-syndicalists as their ideological predecessors. Otherwise, as the article stands right now, we are rewriting history selectively to fit the POV of the contemporary "libertarian socialists." 172 | Talk 11:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No denying. This looks odd, too:

• 7 Criticism of libertarian socialism
• 8 Response to criticism
• 9 Response to response
• 10 Further criticism of libertarian socialism
• 11 Response
• 12 Freedom vs. Equality

It needs re-structuring alright. Jobjörn 11:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I forgot to add that the article is simply disorganized. 172 | Talk 12:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I just went ahead and added a "cleanup" template. I was considering adding a NPOV template; but I didn't know if that tag would be helpful, as the POV problems seem to stem more from the organization than the prose itself. 172 | Talk 00:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, the criticism "section" is indeed ugly. Has it always looked like that? I don't remember it being that ugly. In any case, as far as the "political roots" section, I do agree that it wasn't clear enough about libertarian socialism being a neologism. However I do think it is best to follow a chronological order. And while a great deal of the historical figures wouldn't have called themselves libertarian socialists, they would have called themselves libertarians, and they would have called themselves socialists. I made a clarification, although admitedly it still looks quite messy. I actually wrote most of the stuff in the political roots section prior to conflict with marxism, so feel free to blaim me for that! Any particular ideas? CJames745 21:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

And while a great deal of the historical figures wouldn't have called themselves libertarian socialists, they would have called themselves libertarians, and they would have called themselves socialists. Perhaps, but who makes that assement? That counter-factual is pure POV, even if it is reasonable... I won't blame you for the state of the article. The content of the "political roots" section is mostly fine in and of itself. It just has to be better contextualized in a more coherently organized article, making clear by whom and when these figures were classified as "libertarian socialists." As far as fixing the article, I don't think that can be done without totally reorganizing it. 172 | Talk 13:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is in desperate need of reputable sources, as well. Its current state has been achieved through a series of uncivil NPOV disputes whereby personal essays and unsourced statements were splodged into the article on an ad hoc basis, under the pretense of furthering neutrality. Accordingly, the factual accuracy of some parts of the article can no longer be assumed. -- WGee 18:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ooooookay kids, this talking is leading us nowhere. Should we together decide on a "Roadmap to Non-Shitty Article" (eg, writing a table of contents first and the contents later) and edit it together, should we delete the entire thingy and start over, or should we carefully analyze the article and point out specific problems we could fix? Jobjörn 14:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of deleting the entire thing and starting over, then writing a table of contents and waiting for the content to be filled in gradually. Your 3rd proposal ("analyze the article and point out specific problems we could fix") is too tedious. 172 | Talk 14:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As we are as a matter of fact using a wiki format, we might just start over without deleting the old article. How does that sound? My school semester ends on thursday, and I have no job this summer. I trust we can build an article worthy of Featured Article status. Jobjörn 22:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, perhaps we should discuss the outlines of that new article on that talk page instead. I'll begin writing some stuff right away (on the talk page, that is. Heh.). Jobjörn 22:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Great plan. My only suggestion is that it may be a good idea to post the new article before the rewrite is totally done. Even a decent stub article would be an improvement over the series of personal essays that now passes as an article. 172 | Talk 23:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Granted. However, it is important that the current article is readily available in the construction of the new one, as it does contain a lot of information. We'll simply move the current one to /Old when we judge that /New is ready for publishing, I suppose. Jobjörn 23:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I must say I think we'd make a great team on this one. You're a historian, I'm a libertarian socialist. ;) Jobjörn 23:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea... Thanks, but I don't know too much about this strain of socialism, at least the recent figures who explicitly use the term. 172 | Talk 00:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Why oh why does it deal with Anarchism and not Libertarian socialism?

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)

Reply: Because anarchism and libertarian socialism have always been synonyms, before right wing thinkers started callng themselves "libertarians" in the 1970s. Therefore the history of libertarian socialism and anarchism are the same.

Is (A) a strain of LS, is LS a strain of (A), or are (A) and LS synonyms?

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)

Criticism Section

It had been beginning to read like a talk page - an endless stream of "yes it is", "no it isn't" and original-researchy claims. I have reduced it to one criticism section and one response-to-criticism subsection. I don't think what is left now is a final or satisfactory form, But: in your edits, please try to maintain concision and encyclopedic tone. Here are the sections I cut out.

Cultural anthropologists have long noted that capitalism defined by private ownership and control of production and self-regulating markets for land, labour and capital is a relatively recent phenomenon in human history, implying that societies can exist and prosper without these attributes. Furthermore, as Chomsky points out, dogmatic capitalist systems based on free-market principles are a practical fallacy, evidenced by the fact that modern capitalist states require publically funded subsidies in order to avoid the inevitable onset of economic depression. Libertarian socialists also claim that the mere existence of markets in antiquity for consumer goods, or the institution of money, does not denote capitalist social relations, nor can they necessarily be regarded as its incipient forms. For example, in their historical work on the institution of money, Fikret Adaman and Pat Devine conclude that "historically money predates (market) exchange and should be seen fundamentally as a means of payment in discharge of a social obligation", in other words it was embedded in social norms rather than being regulated by an autonomous market mechanism. [1]

Libertarian socialists in conjunction with Marxists dispute the notion that capitalist economic relations arise spontaneously in the absence of suppression, but in fact require active political suppression in the form of property law that is enforced either by a state or by private force (see: Property is theft). Karl Polanyi argued in his seminal work, The Great Transformation (1944), that while markets existed for consumer goods they were invariably embedded in social norms, whereas as self-regulating markets for labour, land and money came about only as the result of the violent intervention by the state. The first instance of this violent displacement of traditional societies occurred in England with the enclosures of common land from the 15th to 18th centuries. This state-led experiment of imposing the "stark utopia" of the self-regulating market wherein the guiding motives of individuals in society are reduced to "hope of gain" and "fear of hunger" has been repeated many times since, throughout the globe, at what socialists claim is an enormous human and environmental cost, including the virtual extinction of ethnic cultures (e.g., Colonialism). It has also been a process that has elicited oppositional struggles whose thrust has been to re-embed the market in social norms that protect the human and natural substance of society.

There are few, if any, libertarian socialists who think that violence should play an institutional role in a future society. Some anarchists, who have been called anarcho-pacifists, reject violence altogether. Thus, they claim that it is a straw-man to suggest that libertarian socialists would violently restrict voluntary economic relations between individuals in the absence of a state. Rather, they believe that capitalist economic relations require public or private enforcement because they are involuntary themselves, thus resistance against private property enforcement is a form of defense.

A common libertarian response is that the only human societies that predated capitalist market structures were hunter-gatherer societies, or small agrarian societies. Libertarian Socialism therefore, libertarians say, is only possible under these conditions, and would be impossible in the modern world.

In response to Chomsky's allegation that capitalism necessarily causes economic depression, libertarians would direct the reader to the school of Austrian Economics, which asserts that economic recession and the business cycle are not innate to a capitalist economy, but rather caused by government intervention in the market.

To the statement that market structures require property law and interventionist enforcement on the part of the government, libertarians would reply that the enforcement of property law is every bit as natural as the development of market structures themselves. If such law were not formalized and enforced by the state, then it would be enforced by individuals and private security firms operating based on common law.

Libertarian socialists generally disagree that the division is specious, but agree that it in some circumstances it can be a subject of contention; thus the decision cannot be trusted to executive decisions of bureaucrats (as state socialists propose), but insofar as it is a public concern, it can be expected to be resolved in the participatory democratic body appropriate to the circumstances. Others believe that the distinction they make is not between personal and productive property, but rather between property that is "in use" or part of a broader use pattern and property that is "out of use" or used to extort labor from a second party.

Yet it is perhaps telling that those who follow Vonnegut's line of argument do not provide examples of egalitarians who actually hold the views that they are attacking.

Furthermore, libertarian socialists note that enterprise is not a right as protected by the Harm Principle of Mill, given their critiques of capitalism as a necessarily harmful institution. Freedom, they argue, would amount to semantics if the right of capitalistic enterprise were to be maintained.

Historical Roots and Anarchism Today section

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)

No. You are doing a great job. Thank you! -- Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 18:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

They're gone. Since they reduplicate material on the Anarchism page, I didn't bother pasting in here. Bacchiad 16:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Time to remove the tags?

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)

Remove the Anarchism template?

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)

This article is a lie

There is no such thing as libertarian socialism. It is an oxymoron. PatriotFirst 03:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey PatriotFirst. I understand your objections to libertarian socialism as a theory. But it is a theory. Please specify what you believe to be "original research" before replacing the tag at the top. Bacchiad 07:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

PatriotFirst, it is pathetically obvious that you haven't even read the article. I'll quote it for you:

In the United States, the term libertarian is usually associated with the pro-capitalist agenda libertarianism (and of the United States Libertarian Party); the term libertarian socialism therefore strikes many as incongruous. The first person to describe himself as a libertarian, however, was Joseph Déjacque, an early French anarcho-communist. The word stems from the French word libertaire (synonymous to "anarchist"), and was used in order to evade the ban on anarchist publications, which were banned by law in France (Wikiquote, URL accessed on June 4, 2006). In the context of the European socialist movement, libertarian has conventionally been used to describe those like Mikhail Bakunin who opposed state socialism.

That is actually the very FIRST paragraph of the article. One would think you would have read that, at least. It goes on, though:

The basic philosophy of libertarian socialism is summed up in the name: management of the common good (socialism) in a manner that attempts to maximize the liberty of individuals and minimizes concentration of power or authority (libertarianism). It attempts to achieve this through the decentralization of political and economic power, usually involving the collectivization of most large-scale property and enterprise. Libertarian socialism denies the legitimacy of most forms of economically significant private property, since, according to socialists, when private property becomes capital, it leads to the exploitation of others with less economic means and thus infringes on the exploited class's individual freedoms.

Capitalism does not have a monopoly on any of the following words: freedom, liberty, justice, libertarian, individual. Or any other words.

There's further information, by the way:

Seventeen years (1857) after Proudhon first called himself an anarchist (1840), anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque was the first person to describe himself as a libertarian. Because the word "libertarian" is now commonly used by anti-state capitalists, non-authoritarian socialists often call themselves libertarian socialists to differentiate themselves.

Don't vandalize the article again. Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 08:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

wowzy

Actually, the first pargraph in the article is:

Libertarian socialism is any one of a group of political philosophies dedicated abolishing the exploitation of labor by restoring direct control of production to workers and local communities. While many varieties of socialism emphasize the role of the state or the party in promoting social justice, libertarian socialists place their hope in industrial unions, workers' councils, local municipalities, or other non-bureaucratic means of action. Many libertarian socialists, indeed, advocate doing away with the state altogether, seeing it as a bulwark of capitalism.

Please don't accuse me of vandalism. It has such a nasty ring to it, when all I have done is disagree with you.

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)

ps I may be new, but have been reading the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I don't know all of them yet, but I am reading and learning them. Please don't lie in encyclopedia articles. It is considered biased POV pushing, and not caring a whit for the readers of the article, and not caring a whit for Wkipedia, which has the potential for being a great thing. Thanks for reading this. PatriotFirst 20:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you didn't just disagree with me. Then you would have taken it up on the talk page. You did this, which is a case of vandalism.

Further, when saying "the first paragraph of the article", I was not counting the introduction, but rather the first paragraph of the actual article, which I'd say begins AFTER the Table of contents. Yet again, I am sure you understand what I meant, but just want to point out minor faults just to... bug me. Too bad it wasn't even a fault. Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 21:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, apparently you still haven't read the article. Socialism does not rule out individual freedom (liberty), and libertarian (the word, not the ideology) does not rule out socialism. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; and libertarian socialism is a well-known and widespread ideological movement. If you'd like to keep this up, you could go claim the Catholic Church is a lie: see catholic on Wiktionary. The Catholic Church is obviously not all inclusive, even though its name claims it is. (For the record: libertarian socialism is both libertarian (the word, not the ideology) and socialist, no matter what you decide what the Catholic church is.) Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 21:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Affirmative Action: A Case-Study on Libertarian Socialism

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)

Thank you for clarifying your position. The example you bring up - so-called affirmitive action is an excellent test case to tease out what libertarian socialists mean by socialism.

First, let's review the difference between classical socialism - that of say, Bakunin, Marx and Proudhon - and contemporary welfare-liberalism. For welfare liberalism, the problem is that wealth is distributed unequally. There are a number of axes around which inequality happens, one of them being race. Affirmative action is thus the "natural" solution to correcting the wealth-inequalities of one particular disadvantaged group.

Contrast this with classical socialism. Here, the problem is that the tools for generating wealth - factories and capital and the means of production - are held unequally. And the only real axis of struggle is class - all others, like race, are merely proxies for class struggle.

So, to offer one possible libertarian socialist respose to affirmative action: the chief result will be to form a co-opted elite within the black community, and by its "success" to paper over the essentially class-based problems of the black community.

One libertarian socialist response to the race-problem would be to organize militant unions among unskilled workers, and to push not only for higher wages, but also for greater autonomy - measures like the wobbly shop. Or, to struggle to create mutual banking systems - which current financial regulations render essentially illegal - in black communities, to allow the development of new, self-owned means of production.

Socialism in any proper sense is about the workers having control over the means of production. Trying to do this through a revolutionary vanguard party is Leninism; trying to doing this through constitutional means is social democracy. Trying to do this through militant unions and direct action is libertarian socialism. It got the name 'libertarian' because it has refused the statist, top-down approaches of other socialists.

Bacchiad 06:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

No problem, PatriotFirst. And, as heated as this exchange has gotten at times, your discussion on the talk page has brought out some points that could probably use clarifying in the article. Unfortunately, the term "socialism" has been distorted by its so-called advocates to the point where I think we do need to talk about this in the text. Thanks, Bacchiad 20:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

"Libertarian socialism"?

oh god what a joke—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 00:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You may want to read below the headings above; "This article is a lie", "wowzy" and "Affirmative Action: A Case-study on...". Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason why these guys are called "libertarian socialists", is because the abusive misuse of the term "libertarian" by american minimal-statist capitalists confuses people into forgetting that a libertarian is also opposed to capitalist opression. You *CANT* be a libertarian and a capitalist by definition. This is self evident. However because its not worth going in circles arguing with simpletons, people just conceed the fallacy and use the somewhat redundant term "libertarian socialist". I stand by the fact that the page "libertarian" should correctly be a redirect to "anarchism". Save the english language! 58.7.0.146 15:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but anarchists, who are socialists, were the first ones to use the word libertarian to describe themselves. Hold whatever opinions you want about liberty and socialism being incompatible, but you can't deny that fact. CJames745 16:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone here have an answer to the question already posed above: "Is (A) a strain of LS, is LS a strain of (A), or are (A) and LS synonyms?"

Basically, they're synonyms. There was a ban on explicitly anarchist publications in France at some point during the nineteenth century, so agitprop newspapers got around that by calling themselves "libertarian". It also served to distance the serious people from the indiscriminate bomb-throwers. This happened, I might add, well before Rothbard &c. started using the word. Bacchiad 04:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in many European countries at least 'libertarian' and 'anarchist' are used interchangeably. But that still doesn't solve for me the question of 'libertarian socialism'. If it is just a synonym of anarchism, all we need to do is have this page redirect to anarchism. But I think it is the case in recent years that some people and groups have started calling calling themselves 'libertarian socialist', and distinguishing themselves in some way from anarchism. Thus, there may be a new, at least partially distinct phenomenon, which deserves its own article. But then the article has to explain and describe that, rather than just duplicating the anarchism page.Bengalski 15:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I read this article hoping for some enlightenment on this question and I don't think I'm much wiser. My vague understanding is that people use the term LS to mean something like: anarchism + some strains of autonomist-ultraleft-whatever marxism. To my mind what I'd like to see here is not just chunks from the anarchist and council communism pages - it can just link to those. But a) an explanation, with sources, of how the term came about, its history, why people would call themselves 'libertarian socialists' rather than just 'anarchists' etc. (not coming from the US, I've always thought 'anarchism' and 'libertarianism' were simple synonyms); b) praps some info on links in history and ideas between anarchism and ultra-left marxism.Bengalski 23:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Not only can I not help, I can make matters worse: many "liberarian socialists" call themselves simply "libertarians". but I suspect much of the differences can be understood/explained in terms of negative and positive rights. --Serge 23:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That's if you're interested in arguments based on rights theory, which historically most anarchist thinkers haven't been - except maybe the working man's right to the fruit of his labor (labor theory of value + labor theory of property).

In general, Anglo-American liberalism has understood freedom in terms of "what can I do or not do?" Negative and positive rights theory flows out of that question. For European radicals since at least Rousseau, the more salient question has been, "what kind of relations are there between me and other people when I do stuff." If the answer is "mastery and subordination", anarchists are against it. Hence opposition to the state and to wage labor. Hence the alternate label "libertarian socialism". Bacchiad 04:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Libertarian Socialism

I'm not sure I'm satisfied with the definition given at the beginning of the article. It currently states "Libertarian socialism is any one of a group of political philosophies dedicated to the abolition of private property by restoring direct control of production and resources to the working class." Before a change I made, it didn't even differentiate between property and private property. I feel that this is a misrepresentation of libertarian socialism from a communist bent. I don't think anybody here disputes that mutualism is a form of libertarian socialism, and yet mutualists do not in fact seek the abolition of private property. I think that the definition given later in the article is more accurate: "The basic philosophy of libertarian socialism is summed up in the name: management of the common good (socialism) in a manner that attempts to maximize the liberty of individuals and minimizes concentration of power or authority (libertarianism)," although that doesn't so much stress the economic aspect.

Here is my suggestion. Let me know what you think so we can come to a consensus.

"Libertarian socialism is any one of a group of political philosophies dedicated to the redistribution of wealth by giving direct control of production and resources to the common people."

This definition is free of the confusing jargon involving property, private property, and the working class (I think), and it is more inclusive of all forms of libertarian socialism. I would add that the article needs an overall tuning down of jargon as well. CJames745 03:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think given the confusion over the term (see discussions above), specifically whether it's just a synonym for anarchism, we really need to get some sourcing for the definition. We could start by looking at how groups and notable individuals who self-define as libertarian socialists (not just anarchists, or libertarians, but LS specifically) use the term; also historians and published commentators etc. Anyone know any good sources?Bengalski 11:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

From a bit of googling, I get the impression there are a few different strands at work, e.g.

1) (more or less) anarchists using it as a simple synonymn, or a more polite term to dissociate themselves from bomb-throwing;

what daniel guerin says;

Chomsky - 'libertarian socialism is just anarchism'

Robert Hahnel - libertarian socialism: participatory planning

an Argentinian anarchist group

an italian anarchist mag called SL

and a Brazilian one

2) ex-trots and other authoritarian marxist parties relaunching themselves now that authoritarian marxism is discredited;

Toronto Libertarian socialist collective;

Spanish ex-trots

3)oh no it seems recently even mainstream ruling 'socialist' parties are picking up the term:

looks like spanish president Zapatero started it

and now UK 'New Labour' is libertarian socialist too?

but that's not all, e.g.:

Sandino was a LS?

a US 'Libertarian socialist league' in the 1950s

Bengalski 12:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"Libertarian socialism is any one of a group of political philosophies dedicated to the redistribution of wealth by giving direct control of production and resources to the common people."

That's an incorrect definition. Most schools of libertarian socialism/anarchism advocate the abolition of money entirely, and instead propose a communal gift economy. Thus, there would be no wealth to (re)distribute, because everything would belong to everybody. -- WGee 01:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As your sources indicate, libertarian socialism is indeed a synonym for anarchism. For further evidence, one only needs to glance at some of the headings: Anti-capitalism; Opposition to the State; Conflict with Marxism; Anarchist communism; Anarcho-syndicalism; Mutualism. All of these sections, and their contents, accordingly, are perfectly pertinent to the anarchism article. Furthermore, by comparing this article's lead to the lead of the anarchism article, one realizes that these two ideologies are essentially one and the same.

Read this expert from the Political roots section, as well:

"As Albert Meltzer and Stuart Christie stated in their book The Floodgates of Anarchy, anarchism has:

...its particular inheritance, part of which it shares with socialism, giving it a family resemblance to certain of its enemies. Another part of its inheritance it shares with liberalism, making it, at birth, kissing-cousins with American-type radical individualism, a large part of which has married out of the family into the Right Wing and is no longer on speaking terms. (The Floodgates of Anarchy, 1970, page 39.)

That is, anarchism arose as a cross between socialism and liberalism, incorporating the anti-capitalist attitude of socialists and the anti-statist, what would today be called 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."

By discussing anarchism in lieu of libertarian socialism, the article itself equates the two ideologies. Thus, I propose that this article be merged with anarchism.

--WGee 02:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge with anarchism? I wish. That article is being beaten to death by "anarcho"-capitalist POV-pushers, as we all know.

However, howabout reworking this article to basically describe it as classical, anti-capitalist (true) anarchism, and have a sentence in the anarchism article saying that "socialist anarchists" have also been known as libertarians or libertarian socialists? -203.208.72.234 09:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I can only give my subjective perspective fwiw. I prefer to use the term libertarian socialist to describe myself because for me it sugggests a contemporary forward looking form of anti-authoritarian socialism. I think of the term's slight dissociation from anarchism as a virtue. First I like the fact that there is no immediately apparent connection between libertarian socialism and what I consider the frivolous and reactionary strains of anarchism. Also though I have some respect for the classical anarchists, I tend to think their work has been overrated even among modern anarchists. In terms of their value for building a movement for a participatory society, the work of the classical anarchists has already been surpassed by modern theorists. Moreover though it is better and more useful than classical anarchism, modern libertarian socialist theory is still in its early developmental stages. I think of classical anarchism more as an interesting relic than a guide, even at the level of articulation of the basic values on which to build a self-managing society without illegitimate hierarchies. I think that, at least ideally, modern libertarian socialism is distinguished by more diversity and less dogma in its activism, a rational and scientific bent, the experience of the new left, green, anti-nuclear, and new social movements, a diversity in its critical theory that extends to all forms of oppression, and a less dogmatic attitude towards pragmatic reform within the context of the state, while realizing the fundamental injustice of the state. I have observed that an increasingly significant number of folks (grassroots and academics) prefer to use the term to describe themselves. I think that libertarian socialism may be emerging as a higher form of social anarchism for the 21st century, with notable distinctions from its classical variant, therefore an article under the title of libertarian socialism that reflects its forward looking outlook and diverse strategies should appear here in wikipedia.BernardL 12:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Murray Bookchin:Libertarian socialist

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)

Anti-capitalist individualism too reductionist

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)

External links

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)

Why don't we

I don't know. You tell me. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't what?Sjeng 20:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Anarcho-Communism?

Two quick questions: 1. Isn't Libertarian Socialism just a less extreme ideological standpoint akin to Anarcho-Communism? 2. Why isn't the section entitled, "Part of the Politics series on Anarchism?" Signed, 70.51.249.132 07:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC) ~A Vigilante

1. Not entirely. Libertarian socialism includes anarchist communism, but also other forms of anarchism (mutualism, individualist anarchism not including "anarcho"-capitalism, collectivist anarchism, anarcho-primitivism, anarcho-syndicalism) and, depending on whose definition you use, possibly forms of libertarian Marxism including autonomism and council communism.

2. It isn't part of the series on Anarchism because it isn't used only to refer to anarchists. It can also apply to other forms of anti-authoritarian socialism. Interesting though. ~Switch ^t 09:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Huge edits to "Criticism"

What does everyone think of the recent huge edits to the Criticism section? Detail is always good, but this is written in essay form and borders on a treatise of "Why libertarian socialism is bad." I'm removing now, but discussion is open. ~Switch ^t 05:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm the actual writer of that edit. Isn't pointing out how something is bad sort of the point of criticiscm? Anyhow, I agree that my contribution might border on original research. It's hard to just find a source for this sort of thing and cite it. Most decently argued criticism of collectivism focuses on either democratic socialism or authoritarian dictatorship-of-the-proletariat style Soviet communism. Libertarian socialism and other theories that combine disapproval of coercion with an egalitarian ideal are taken seriously much less frequently by critics I've read. Still, I would prefer to see my contribution edited rather than deleted all at once. The criticism section as it stands is a bit unfair, and seems to based on imagined ("straw man") criticism more than on an actual understanding of anti-collectivist thought.

For one thing, it misrepresents the criticism from human nature, suggesting that critics think of altruism as always "unrealistic" rather than simply preferring not to rely on it too much, lest even small resurgences of greed might break the system. The more cynical POV may be common with casual critics of collectivist theories, but the more sophisticated free market thinkers distance themselves from it explicitly. I could probably dig up citations to a number of economists and philosophers given some time. The biologist, E.O. Wilson has actually gone further and suggested that a certain very particular form of altruism may be undesirable, and Adam Smith, I believe, once said something nasty about do-gooders, more or less on the order of Virgil's "beware of Greeks and those bearing gifts". The only major author I can think of who is sorta-kinda in the Western liberal tradition and who actually disapproves of altruism is Ayn Rand, who probably gets the idea from Nietzsche, although she characteristically rarely admits getting anything from anyone but Aristotle Himself. Please draw your own conclusions about my opinion of Ayn Rand ;-)

More importantly, the current version ignores the subtle but historically very important Hayekian socialist calculation criticism. The Hayekian socialist calculation argument is very important, because it is pretty much devoid of value judgments or assumptions about human nature, relying instead on the role of private property and the free market in providing a system that aggregates data like a distributed computer program and provides the inputs required for each agent to make proper decisions. While a society of perfectly benevolent agents might try to communicate all relevant information openly, the communication and computation requirements rapidly get out of hand when it turns out that agents now no longer even have a good guide as to what information to go gather. The socialist calculation argument is usually applied against central planning, but it would hold equally against systems based on democratic planning or even on everybody voluntarily following a self-evident idea of the common good. Whatever you think about this argument, it is a staple of anti-collectivist thought in the 20th century.

I apologize for the rant about the meaning of the word capitalism. I think it's an important misunderstanding that needs clearing up for anyone to understand the debate, but I cannot honestly claim it does not contain some amount of interpretation. Maybe some amount of scholarly dressing up might save it. We could do something like a separate page on "capitalism (disambiguation)", but even that might be too much novelty for the more conservative among libertarian socialist Wikipedians. (Do such creatures exist? I'd like to meet a conservative libertarian socialist some day. It would be the pinnacle of political identity confusion.) Sjeng 20:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely feel free to add the criticism back in, but keep in mind that Wikipedia articles should always be written from a neutral point of view, that original research is not allowed, and that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Additions are always welcome, but should be written in an encyclopaedic style. If you could revise the edits in accordance with policy, especially regarding essay form versus article form, and then add them again, that would be great. ~Switch ^t 23:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sjeng- it was your libertarian confreres who made the criticisms that are there not libertarian socialists. Also it should not be assumed that a libertarian socialist institutional structure relies on an altruistic conception of human nature. Most of them presuppose that propensities within variegated human nature for mutual reciprocity, cooperation,solidarity, and especially self-management can be brought forth by the proposed institutions. Having read plenty of Hayek I also think that you misrepresented his views on emergent order which was not that several property will arise automatically in the abscence of regulating factors so much as it did arise (in graeco-roman culture often in opposition to the regulatory factors of tribal tradition- see Fatal Conceit) and having done so he argues that these institutions augmented the fitness of the species becoming inscribed in cultural tradition and founded the civilization based upon the extended order. (Personally, I think his pseudo-historical claims have been proven quite bogus. [2]) In any case your treatise did not refer to any specific libertarian socialist thinker and thus far you have not displayed any evidence of having mindfully read a substantial sample of libertarian socialist literature. These deficiencies were glaringly evident in your critique. The libertarian socialist doctrine that I know was unrecognizable in what you described as libertarian socialism. By the way, roughly 96.2 % of all Hayekians are not aware that there is now a substantial body of literature written from libertarian socialist perspectives that critique Hayek,right-wing libertarian tendencies, Austrian and neo-Austrian economics, etc. If you wish to learn something of this perspective have a gander at Pat Devine's analysis of the Economic Calculation Debate. [3] BernardL 23:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream politicians

That little run of not-signed-in edits adding mainstream politicians described as "libertarian socialists" was me. I thought it important to show that the term existed in this context. I know it sucks that only have UK examples. I don't know if other centre-left parties have a comparable "libertarian" tendency or not. I thought maybe Joska Fischer would have been described in these terms but couldn't find anything through Google. I think the libertarians in the Labour Party trace there roots back to the co-op movement but I really don't know enough to write more. A Geek Tragedy 14:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I think this maybe is another reason to create a Libertarian (word) article. The article, obviously, would discuss the word's origins in philosophy, its use by Dejacque and subsequently as a synonym for anarchism, its recent use by minarchist capitalists, and everything in between, including terms like libertarian socialism that have sprung from it. It would help to make this much clearer.

For the time being though, how about an Etymology section here, discussing the way the term has been applied? ~Switch ^t 14:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

criticism section

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)

Libertarians are NOT anticapitalists

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)

Template:Libertarianism

Hello there folks. Recently, Josephholsten edited the article so that it now includes {{Libertarianism sidebar}}. I oppose the inclusion of this template, because

1. 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.
2. 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)

Oppose inclusion per Jobjörn. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 09:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

We should just place libertarian socialism under the socialism banner and anarchism banner, since it directly relates to both, and since the article itself says many people use "anarchism" and "libertarian socialism" interchangeably.72.78.8.51 (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Two changes

1. 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...
2. 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)

Should we Merge this page with Left-libertarianism?

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)

Against. Particularly against re-naming this article to "left-libertarianism" because libertarian socialism is a notable subject (and distinguishable tradition) of its own and thus deserves its own article. I also feel that the left-libertarian article is a poor article. There is not really much in it that I would keep. Although this only suggests to me that the "left-libertarianism" deserves a serious re-write.BernardL 12:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Against. The current Left-libertarianism article could use some work, but it deals with a couple of specific movements which use that specific label. I don't think we will improve the clarity of any of the articles by lumping together even more of the things that are arguably "left" and "libertarian." Libertatia 16:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Against. The Left-libertarianism article covers two meanings which have little to do with libertarian socialism. Agorism, covered in that article, is a form of anarcho-capitalism. If anything, a disambiguation at the beginning of the left-libertarianism article would link to libertarian socialism, and the article text would omit the socialist meaning entirely. PhilLiberty 03:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then perhaps we should replace LL with a disambiguation page leading to LS, Agorism, Geolibertarianism, and perhaps specific subsets of LS or specific issues concerning LL (inclusive or exclusive of LS)? Jacob Haller 03:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Against, but yes it does need to be re-written. —Christopher Mann McKay 05:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we remove the merger box things now? BobFromBrockley 15:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Anarchist norwegian embassy?

Long time ago i´ve come to this weird norwegian website anarchy.no which claims to mantain an anarchist embassy. What´s that all about? Thanks for any help. --201.83.178.101 16:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea and I doubt anyone else here does either. Try asking them - the website is still around. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, i think i would have a more npov if i didnt ask for the guy who owns the website. =P --201.83.178.101 05:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hilarious site, thanks for the link. I think it's either a hoax or a small group of extreme sectarians. They claim to have an "International Anarchist Tribunal" which can kick people out of the international anarchist movement by issuing "brown cards" - in accordance with "the Oslo Convention" (?!). They claim to be the "Anarchist International" but they do not list any affiliated groups - this is not the IWA/AIT or the IAF. -Steve

Anarchism/libertarian socialism

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)

Totally disputed

I have already stated in my objections in edit summaries but Jacob Haller asked to explain them here too. My objection is that this article is making unsupported and factuality incorrect claims, whose removal is not being allowed by some editors. I'm primarily referring to claim that anarchism is a libertarian socialist philosophy, but also to several other unsourced claims such that Proudhon's phrase "Property is theft" describes his view on the nature of ownership in relation to freedom. Also, it is said that individualist anarchism is a form of libertarian socialism, and at the same time it is said that libertarian socialism is a group of philosophies which want to create society without hierarchies through abolition of private property. That is contradictory to the statement of the most prominent individualist anarchist, Benjamin Tucker who said: Anarchism is a word without meaning, unless it includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free market - that is, private property. Whoever denies private property is of necessity an Archist. How can individualist anarchism be considered a libertarian socialist philosophy when its main figure says that private property is a basic component of any meaningful anarchism? -- Vision Thing -- 13:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

that anarchism is a libertarian socialist philosophy... well, if we exclude anarcho-capitalism, it is libertarian socialist. Tucker's Armies that Overlap goes into the definitional problems here. As Tucker concludes: "Of course there is a sense in which every Anarchist may be said to be a Socialist virtually, inasmuch as usury rests on authority and to destroy the latter is to destroy the former. But it scarcely seems proper to give the name Socialist to one who is such unconsciously, neither desiring, intending, nor knowing it." Are there any suggestion which don't involve tacking exceptions to each reference to anarchism? Jacob Haller 22:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't exclude anarcho-capitalism from anarchism without a major dispute. See Talk:Anarchism for former discussions about that issue. -- Vision Thing -- 12:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

My view is that it is wrong to call libertarian socialism an anarchist philosophy, and it is wrong to exclude anarcho-capitalism from anarchism. There is a large sub-class of libertarian socialists who are anarchists, and vice versa, but there are clearly libertarian socialists who are not anarchists (they favour a minimal state rather than no state) and there are clearly anarchists who are not libertarian socialists (either they are passionately in favour of private property, or they see socialism as a concept too entangled with the staet to want to call themselves socialists). BobFromBrockley 09:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Simple grammatic analysis of the term shows that Libertarian is not the main point, but rather a descriptor of the veriety of Socialism. --24.107.9.33 (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC) aka MilquetoastCJW

You'd have to exclude post-left anarchism (Bob Black), and anarcho-primitivism (John Zerzan) as well. That's three schools of anarchism which aren't socialist, at least in the traditional sense of socialism being worker-oriented (no "workers" in either philosophy). Left-libertarianism, libertarian socialism and anarchism are deeply related, but certainly not overlapping. I would rather have different articles where the unique character of each can shine through, interrelated by links, rather than one big hodge-podge mess.72.78.8.51 (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

that Proudhon's phrase "Property is theft" describes his view on the nature of ownership in relation to freedom... In my interpretation, Proudhon means that property includes several different institutions; some (possession) protect freedom (Property is liberty) and others (property) undermine possession (Property is theft).

In other words, Proudhon accepts the aim of property (in classical/radical liberal thought) and proposes possession, which achieves the same aim, is more amenable to overlapping claims, and is less amenable to rent/interest/profit/monopoly as a drop-in replacement for property. Jacob Haller 22:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Colin Ward's interpretation as explained here. In any case, simply stating that Proudhon's view on the nature of ownership can be described with that phrase is completely misleading and wrong. -- Vision Thing -- 12:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

it is said that individualist anarchism is a form of libertarian socialism, and at the same time it is said that libertarian socialism is a group of philosophies which want to create society without hierarchies through abolition of private property. The mutualism section partly clarifies this. Jacob Haller 22:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Overall, the intro statement about private property could be redone. I suggest tagging the appropriate passages for further reference. Jacob Haller 22:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the main problems of this article is original research. All provided references are for particular movements, there is no reference to any work about libertarian socialism in general. That is probably because such work doesn't exist, since libertarian socialism is not a particularly notable ideology. -- Vision Thing -- 12:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please come up with some specific criticisms? Simply referring to the article as original research does nothing to help us improve it. Are you saying that ALL of it is original research? Etcetc 00:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms Section Incoherent

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)

Property is Theft/Freedom/Improssible

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)

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)

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)

Not FA

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)

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)

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)

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)

Removed paragraph

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)

Criticism section (2)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Whatever the process to get to this point, the Criticism section of this article is woefully deficient. I realize that space and size are issues, so I've introduced a short paragraph that gives a summary of critiques that come from libertarian philosophers. The previous summary, which essentially states that libertarians think there need to be some restrictions on liberty, is not representative of some of the most prominent libertarian thinkers. Hopefully what I've added will bring more balance to this section of the text. 208.178.18.134 14:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Section-by-Section review

Introductory Paragraphs

1st Paragraph:

1. 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.
2. 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:

1. Can anyone identify sources? Probably the same ones as for the 1st paragraph.
2. Can we discuss what these means have in common, e.g. most are voluntary, many are decentralized?

3rd Paragraph:

1. Can anyone identify sources? Jacob Haller 23:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Overview

Messy passage here. IMHO, the currect revision is better than the original version:

The basic philosophy of libertarian socialism is summed up in the name: an anti-capitalist system of economic distribution (socialism) executed in a manner that attempts to maximize the liberty of individuals and minimize concentration of power or authority (libertarianism).

However, I'd like to see something as clear as possible. The libertarian and socialist elements reinforce each other: maximum individual liberty dissolves economic, as well as political, hierarchies; removing economic privilege dissolves political, as well as economic, hierarchies, and maximizes individual liberty. And "anti-capitalist" is extremely hard to define. Jacob Haller 01:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So is libertarian socialism =) What if we replace "anti-capitalist" with "worker oriented", or "labor oriented" for socialism? Mixing that with your valid concern might produce something like, "The philosophy of libertarian socialism is explicated in the symbiotic relationship between libertarian and socialist impulses. Libertarian desire for maximum individual liberty dissolves economic and political hierarchy; leading to a worker-oriented socialism. Conversely, socialist desire for worker control guards against the development of economic and political hierarchy; opening a space for libertarian relationships."

My worry would be that the more this passage is fleshed out the more it will scream for a source, and it would probably require more than one. Any thoughts on a book that expresses something like you have mentioned? Etcetc 02:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Malatesta discusses different anarchist proposals in a reply to "adamas":[4]

In the anarchist milieu, communism, individualism, collectivism, mutualism and all the intermediate and eclectic programmes are simply the ways considered best for achieving freedom and solidarity in economic life; the ways believed to correspond more closely with justice and freedom for the distribution of the means of production and the products of labour among men.

Bookchin describes LS as a synonym of Social A (excluding Individualist A as well as non-A) in "Whither Anarchism?":[5]

At one extreme of anarchism is a liberal ideology that focuses overwhelmingly on the abstract individual (often drawing on bourgeois ideologies), supports personal autonomy, and advances a negative rather than a substantive concept of liberty. This anarchism celebrates the notion of liberty from rather than a fleshed-out concept of freedom for. At the other end of the anarchist spectrum is a revolutionary libertarian socialism that seeks to create a free society, in which humanity as a whole--and hence the individual as well--enjoys the advantages of free political and economic institutions.

and that

Supporters of the socialistic tendencies in anarchism, which I have called social anarchism, never denied the importance of gaining individual freedom and personal autonomy. What they consistently argued, however, was that individual freedom will remain chimerical unless sweeping revolutionary changes are made that provide the social foundations for rounded and ethically committed individuals. As social anarchism has argued, the truly free individual is at once an active agent in and the embodiment of a truly free society.

Tucker in SSA never uses the two-word phrase; moreover he excludes Kropotkin and many anarcho-communists from anarchism. (I'm not sure what Tucker thought of Malatesta). Jacob Haller 03:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A 1995 statement by the (Swedish) SAC states:[6]

The conventionally accepted division between the different socialist tendencies is if they are revolutionary or reformist. Without doubt the syndicalists place themselves on the revolutionary side, (naturally reforms are not rejected as such). But we see another division which is just as important; that between authoritarian (revolutionary or reformistic) and libertarian socialists. The former believing that it is the states responsibility for society's administration either through a proletarian dictatorship or by elected representatives. Often the concept of libertarian socialism is used as being synonymous with syndicalism for example George Woodcocks (sic) description of "the very nature of the libertarian attitude - its rejection of dogma, its deliberate avoidance of rigidly systematic theory and, above all, its stress on extreme freedom of choice and on the primacy of the individual judgement". But a libertarian socialism can be regarded in many different ways - as anarchism, or as libertarian communism according to Kropotkin's thoughts. What is specific for syndicalism is the view on workers unions as a means both for revolution and the administration of production. Syndicalism is therefore a libertarian socialism but also something more. Notwithstanding that nowadays syndicalism is not dominant within the workers movement in any country it is in our opinion indispensable: it is through the syndicalist organisations that the visions of true emancipation is kept alive. The defeat of capitalism demands class consciousness and the capability to fight, but to build up a free society the individuals personal sense of responsibility is more important. Only syndicalism unites both these elements.

Guerin's "Libertarian Marxism" goes beyond the purely anarchist topics above. [7]

Faatz's "Towards a Libertarian Socialism" states:[8]

Refreshingly enough, in this age of relentless analysis and little prescription, Bookchin goes on to offer a libertarian left *program* around which such a rational, humanistic, pluralistic socialist project could--and might--cohere. Bookchin emphasizes four points as central to such a program: confederal forms (a commune of communes, as he puts it at another point); opposition to statism, class oppression, and hierarchical forms of social organization; a belief in direct democracy; and what I can only delightedly call "the vision thing," i.e., a picture, however fuzzy, of what a libertarian society might look like. He then goes on to insist that: The most imporant issue that left-libertarianism--libertarian socialism no less than anarchism--faces today is: What will it *do* with these four powerful tenets? How will we give them social *form* and *content*? In what *ways* and by what *means* will we render them relevant to our time and bring them to the service of an organized popular movement for empowerment and freedom?

Note that he uses libertarian socialist and libertarian left interchangibly.Jacob Haller 04:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear to me, then, that we need a passage indicating the widely varied use of the term, giving some very brief examples, and quoting several if not all of the sources you've mentioned. Many of these definitions are contradictory, we can't include them all under on vague umbrella without ignoring some, so why not toss out any general definition and indicate the presence of several? Etcetc 17:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

We've attempted something along those lines in the mutualism article, with some success. The trick is to avoid OR categorization or synthesis, while getting enough detail represented to alert readers to the variations. Libertatia 18:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't have time to weigh on now, but this is a useful source, attempting to define libertarianism, socialism and libertarian socialism, in quite an academic way: 'Mclaverty, Peter , 'Socialism and libertarianism', Journal of Political Ideologies, 10:2, 185 - 198 DOI: 10.1080/13569310500097349 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13569310500097349 BobFromBrockley 17:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Council communism and autonomist marxism

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)

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)

Libertarian Socialist neo-nazis

In the 1990s a guy named William White operating out of Maryland began publishing "Libertarian Socialist News" for many years. His brand of Libertarian Socialism is in many ways in line with the ideas of the various groups in this article. The twist of course is that this group is also extremely racist, blaming the continuation of capitalism and the state on the Jews. There is also lots of hate against non-white Americans and immigrants. For many years, they operated on libertariansocialist.com and www.overthrow.com (www.archive.org should have lots of snapshots). They also have a strong anti-war (other than revolutionary war of course) and environmentalist platform. They probably deserve some mention in this article (and any article on "kooks" and "nutcases" Wikipedia may also have) even though I suspect most other self-described libertarian socialists would probably loudly disown this group. If nothing else, it probably ought to be mentioned for purposes of distinguishing between their self-description as libertarian socialists and the mainstream(s) of L.S. ideas. In recent years the group has renamed itself the "Libertarian National Socialist Green Party" at www.nazi.org but its still essentially the same group with the same leader. Murple 17:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Old Kaiser Bill is hardly a notable figure in libertarian socialist circles, and the LSN site was also a pretty clearly non-notable personal website/mailing list/source of spam. The UAP and his nominally "anarchist" activities are mentioned on the article about him. Maybe he's a significant figure in the history of the NSM, but certainly not in that of libertarian socialism, and nobody who had even a Wikipedia intro to the subject would be confused by the content of the LSN stuff. Libertatia 21:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it was never demonstrated that White's political parties were anything other than one person shows with no audience. If he had gained more notoriety perhaps he would be worth mentioning, but I don't think he ever made much of an impact outside of annoying people on mailing-lists. Etcetc 03:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting. Are these the same kind of libertarian socialists like Proudhon? That would make good sense because if you look at the philosophy of the Nazis and Proudhon they are very similar. They are both opposed to finance capitalism, that is recieving profit or interest from investements. The Nazi 25-point platform called for "the abolition of all incomes unearned by work," "profit-sharing in large enterprises," etc. They were both anti-semites. Proudhon said "The Jew is the enemy of the human race. This race must be sent back to Asia, or exterminated." They both supported land reform, opposing absentee ownership of land expanses. They both were concerned with labor exploitation, which to them meant people profiting off the labor of others without working. Both had a kind of socialism that was not the communist kind as socialism is usually understood. Adolph Hitler said "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance." Hitler also said "Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not." Proudhon also supported private property except for absentee ownership of land, just as the Nazis. But both were anti-profit. They were both for a 'third way' that as neither capitalism nor communism. Proudhon socialists and the Nazis were really kindred spirits. There is a good article called "Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: Harbinger of Fascism" that some here may want to read. If Proudhonist economic views are socialim then Nazism must be as well. Again I'm not familiar with Neo-Nazism so I don't know if the are also supporters of this "third way."

BS. Almost any two randomly-selected political philosophies would be far more similar than libertarian socialism and Nazism. Nazism was about suppressing free association, to allow maximum profit for the favored capitalists. Mutualism is about expanding free association, allowing workers to pool their resources, and compete against capitalists. (read Proudhon's actual writings on commerce). Unfortunately, Proudhon was a creature of his time; however, most anarchists since Proudhon have actively opposed nationalism, race-hatred, ethnic-hatred, etc. Jacob Haller 20:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You know what else is interesting? Fascism advocates a totally powerful police state which everyone is subject to, Proudhorn and Libertarian Socialists advocate no state. Fascism advocates protection of social, political and economic hierarchies and in fact exists for the preservation of those hierarchies, Libertarian Socialism exists to abolish hierarchies. Fascism was fiercely anti-communist, communists were killed in the Holocaust and millions of communists fought against Hitler in World War II. Libertarian Socialists are Anarchists and related to Communists. Libertarian Socialists are anti-war, the Nazis were the most pro-war imaginable. Libertarian Socialists strongly support equality, Fascists fervently oppose equality. These two ideologies are the most polar opposites. I could go on and on. But wait! Nazis were vegans, many libertarian socialists are vegans. There are these eerie similarities. They are secretly the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.229.128 (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Proudhon influenced a range of social and political movements right across the spectrum, some of which he opposed in his lifetime (e.g. republican federalism), and others which he almost certainly would have opposed had he lived to see them (e.g. fascism). His writings did have some impact on fascist ideas, especially via Georges Sorel and the right wing of syndicalism. This connection is already noted in the article on Proudhon. But calling libertarian socialists "kindred spirits" of the Nazis is completely unsupported. Also, the claim that libertarian socialism and Nazism support the same system, because they each support systems that are different from pure capitalism and pure communism, is both illogical and unsupported by the evidence. -Steve

"Proudhon was a creature of his time" he says. I love how people make excuses for anti-semetism. Anti-semetism is alive and well today just as it was back then. He wasn't a creature of his time. He chose to be an anti-semite. He was an anti-semite and proto-fascist. Plenty of people were not anti-semites in that time. There is no excuse.

Proudhon has been vastly overrated and is a proto-libertarian socialist thinker. He provided some germs, especially in terms of economic institutions, of what libertarian socialist institutions might aspire to. Libertarian socialism itself is a modern philosophy and movement that opposes all forms of domination- including notably institutional racism. BernardL 01:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't feed the sock-puppets. Libertatia 03:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk page is not a forum

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)

Source?

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)

Council Communism

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)

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)

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)

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)

Libertarian socialism and anarchism again

I have removed a number of those listed as prominent libertarian socialists, as they did not or do not describe themselves as such and in many cases rejected that description: Chumbawumba, Crass, Alexander Berkman, Albert Meltzer. These may all be on the "left" side of anarchism, but they see/saw "socialism" as meaning state socialism, and thus it is unfair to call them prominent libertarian socialists. Even if one argued they are "really" libertarian socialists, that is not what they are notable as, so they should not be on the list. BobFromBrockley 17:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Etcetc 07:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I took out "individualist anarchism" from the introduction. It said some forms of individualist anarchism are commonly described as libertarian socialism. I checked the source and it didn't say it was commonly described that way. It gives the name of one guy who is "arguing" that it was libertarian socialism. But also that conflicts with the definition in this article which says that libertarian socialists want to abolish private property. Individualist anarchists are in support of private property. Illegal editor 01:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Most individualist anarchists have historically held positions close to Proudhon's, and most libertarian socialists have historically interpreted Proudhon's position as abolishing, not defending private property, effectively abolishing property as a power to defend possession as a freedom. Jacob Haller 12:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

How you can be serious? Individualist anarchists believe the individuals should own the fruits of his labor as private property. Find one instance of an individualist anarchists saying he wants to abolish private property. Benjamin Tucker said "Anarchism is a word without meaning, unless it includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free market - that is, private property." Are you going to deny Murray Rothbard supports private property of the product of labor too? Illegal editor 16:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Murray Rothbard is not most individualist anarchists through history. Mutualism emerged 1820-1850; Ancapism emerged 1960-1970. So for the first 3/4 of the history of individualist anarchism, mutualism existed, and ancapism did not.

Most mutualists have considered occupancy and use the measures of ownership of land, opposed patents, opposed monopolies, etc. i.e. they oppose non-possessive property to protect possessive property. (Possessive) property is freedom, (non-possessive) property is theft (of possessive property). A great deal of mutualist and other anarchist literature discusses the distinction. Proudhon wrote on the subject, many other mutualists have written on the subject and defended Proudhon's views on the subject.

For mutualists, as for most other anarchists in general, the abolition of property does not mean the abolition of personal (or small group) possession, it means the defense of possession (possessive property) from property (non-possessive property).

If your objection excludes mutualism from libertarian socialism, it excludes everything else from libertarian socialist too. Jacob Haller 02:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about mutualism. I'm talking about individualist anarchism. Mutualism is somewhere in between individualist anarchism and social anarchism. From the anarchism article, and sourced: "Unlike the American individualist anarchists, Proudhon emphasises associations amongst producers;[29] thus, some see mutualism as being situated somewhere between individualism and collectivism.[30]" I see you're just talking about land. How about everything else that can be private property? Even if most individualist anarchists believed all products of labor, except for land which would be modified private property, is private property, then that is hardly wanting to abolish private property. Individualist anarchists are staunchly in favor of private property. Lysander Spooner suggested that everyone own their own business. How would that be compatible with abolishing private property. If you abolish private property, then individuals do not own their own businesses. Businesses, if you can call them that, would be held in common. Illegal editor 03:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the 'some forms of individualist anarchism' refered to individualist mutualism and its closest parallels. I see that mutualism is still up there. Jacob Haller 05:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Mutualism is still there, yes. Mutualism is dubious too though since it doesn't want to abolish private property except in land. It certainly doesn't accord with the sourced definition in the foonotes which says "Society should be free through mankind's spontaneous federative affiliation to life, based on the community of land and tools of the trade; meaning: Anarchy will be equality by abolition of private property and liberty by abolition of authority." Mutualists aren't for community of land and tools. There may be sources for mutualism being libertarian socialism though. It may just be the case that there has to be a contradiction in the article, since libertarian socialism is not defined to include mutualism. Illegal editor 05:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)