By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Normchacho said:
Aeolus451 said:

I read the op and glanced around a bit in the 1st page then looked into libertarian socialism then into libertarianism/sociolism then I posted. I didn't read into the history of each term or their older meanings for the most part. I also didn't look into how those terms are defined around the world. I didn't have hours to research and compose a post that was better written. 

Socialism is authoritarian in nature while libertarism is the oppisite of that. The political beliefs behind those words are in opposition of eachother. The name libertarian socialism is a oxymoron because of that. Alot of different things I read on this go into a in-depth explanation just behind the name or terminology without really getting to the meat libertarian socialism. That's what I meant with like a cat trying to catch their own tail. Even the explaination of libertarian socialist is convoluted. Tryin' to get a bead on their stances on issues has been fun. 

 

(1) "Libertarian = a person advocating total individual freedom through minimizing the role of the government. 

Socialism = the abolition of privately held means of production. 

A libertarian socialist sees the state as a coercive authoritarian institution which the elite uses to exploit the people. A libertarian socialist sees capitalism as a way for the ones with money, i.e. power, to enforce oppression on the ones who don't. 

Free market is about as fair as the freedom to kill an innocent person."

 

(2) "Libertarian Socialism is a political philosophy that advocates abolition of the state and private property. The term can also be synonymous with anarchism or left libertarianism. The term chould be differentiated from right libertarianism with it's emphasis on laissez-faire capitalism as opposed to libertarian socialism's anti-capitalism and anti-statism ideals.

Johnny is a libertarian socialist who believes in abolition of private proverty along with the state. He believes in a non-violent organic shift to libertarian socialism as opposed to a revolutionary overthrow of authoritarian regimes."

 

(3) "A libertarian socialist would argue that a society based on such huge disparities of wealth is unfree. If you wish to enter into employment, you choose first and take orders later (as with liberal democracy). Libertarian socialists believe in voluntary association and economic democracy. This will allow the individual to reach his/her full potential. "

Depending on which one of those you go by on this, it could seen as an oxymoron or just another type of socialism. In my opinion, they should change the name of it to something else to permnantly resolve the discussion surrounding it's name. It detracts from the beliefs behind it. Anyway, libertarian and socialism shouldn't be in the same name. 


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.