Normchacho said:
First off, socialism isn't authoritarian in nature. I don't know who told you that, but they're wrong. Socialism is at it's very core democratic in nature, since it relies on the common ownership of the means of production. "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." - http://www.dictionary.com/browse/socialism
A Libertarian Socialist would be someone who believes that both the means of production, and political power should be controlled by the people as a whole. " the appeal to a form of emancipation grounded in decentralized, cooperative and democratic forms of political and economic governance which most libertarian socialist visions, tend to share." - Critical theory and libertarian socialism: Realizing the political potential of critical social theory. Bloombury. New York-London. 2014. p. 189 I really don't see what makes this so difficult to understand. Oh, and Urban Dictionary isn't really a valid source when talking about political ideologies. |
Socialism in any of it's definitions can't be achieved without some degree of authoritarianism. How else would you redestribute or control the wealth, goods or means of production if a smaller group of people disagreed with the larger group? By forced compliance by the government.
That also points out how libertarian socialism contradicts itself and it's an oxymoron. It can't exist or be implemented without a government or group of people enforcing the will of the people on the people who disagree with the majority.