Talk:Libertarian socialism/New

If you are wondering why this page exists, see Talk:Libertarian socialism.

Template

The already existing article uses the template socialism. However, it does state that one of the best known libertarian socialist ideologies is anarchism, which uses the template Anarchism. I consider myself both a libertarian socialist and an anarchosyndicalist (or simply anarchist), and I do feel that lib. soc. is definitely more related to anarchism than communism, which is included in the Socialism template (while Anarchism is not, even though it is a socialist ideology?). One of the first things we should decide here is as thus, what template to use?

As a matter of fact, I do feel the Socialism template would be best, as it focuses on a broader spectra than just anarchism. Sincerely, Jobjörn 22:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

We could never use only the anarchism template, as not all currents of libertarian socialism are anarchist—according to the article, at least. As to whether we should use two templates (anarchism and socialism), I'm not quite sure. Since communism has its own template, and libertarian socialism is just as heterogeneous, could we not create a new template? -- WGee 23:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

But before we create a template, I think we should find out what exactly lib. soc. encompasses (I don't quite trust the article, or its external links). Noam Chomsky might have defined it in one of his works, if anybody can scour through them. I, personally, don't have the time right now (or access to a comprehensive library), so I won't be of much help in this regard. -- WGee 23:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That might be an idea indeed. However, I wouldn't want to trust one guy (Chomsky) defining an entire sociopolitical movement - I'd think it best that we look for more sources and definitions. Jobjörn 01:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course. He's just the most eminent person I can think of who uses the term "libertarian socialist" to describe his beliefs. -- WGee 01:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That's because he's famous. One of the point of Libertarian Socialism (as I see it, POV as I can be on the talk page) is avoiding the rise of leaders in any sort. As soon as people begin defining things on their own and assuming the masses will adhere to their definition, it's not libertarian socialism anymore. Just... regular socialism!

I'm not sure that made any sense, but hey, it's soon 5 am in the morning. I'm going to bed, omg. Jobjörn 02:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I guess I'm not a very good libertarian socialist then. ;) But as much as we disdain authority, we have to remember that we are working in an authoritarian encylopædia! -- WGee 03:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)