Not sure, but Swedes at least have some sort of national bipolar disorder when it comes to politics. Many I've met are leftist authoritarians who desire a consensus driven, collectivist society that simultaneously supports and even emphasizes minority and individual rights. This is of course absurd and a complete ideological collision, many just tick off the "good boxes" of the political map to maximize their decency for social media points and feelgood motions at the town square while wearing brand clothing and gear likely made from slave workers. It's a little bit funny but mostly scary.

I pretty much agree with this, whether it's conglomerates or goverments calling the shots; someone is still calling the shots and decisions will benefit some and hurt some. The idea that capitalism sets us free is quite dated and linger from a time where people themselves were commodities and whole swaths of the population could be ignored to benefit the few. It creates a caffee late society where the majority is the brown sludge filling most of the glass to keep the excellent foam afloat up top.

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.

I think this definition is too restrictive to a particular type of libertarian socialism (particularly communism.) A syndicalist, mutualist, and especially an individualist does not think the people as a whole should control a particular means of production, for example. The syndicalist wants the workers via trade-unions (syndicates) to control the means of production. The mutualist thinks everybody should ideally have access to a means of production, but the people "as a whole" don't necessarily control everything. The individualist would be even more antagonistic to your definition, as obviously the most extreme individualists prefer a contractual artisan society. All of these fall under "socialism" and all are libertarian. 

I think only communists and collectivists would agree with your definition, which while they fall under the libertarian-socialist umbrella, they are only a subset of the whole.

If you take the two terms in their commonly used application, yes it is an oxymoron.

However, libertarian socialists hold that wage-labour relations are in effect anti-liberal. Therefore they seek to abolish capitalist relations that have been construed as 'rational'. There is nothing inherently harmonious about hierarchy, which is what economic libertarianism within the context of private ownership relies upon. If you take liberty as a field that should also apply to the relations of wage-labour, then libertarian socialists seek to establish the sort of 'libertarian conditions' that would emancipate and autonomize workers, the poor, etc.

In that context it is not so much an oxymoron, but rather a mutation of what is commonly understood as 'libertarianism'.

Coming from someone who studies Political Theory at doctorate level, I must say that your first paragraph is excellently placed. Well thought out. Wouldn't mind to have students like you, unlike some of those who clearly feel that a University degree is a chore...

I think reading this, I have concluded that libertarian socialism is a massive oxymoron. Anyone who has defended the notion has mostly directly or indirectly has can back to the idea of government of enforcing those socialist values on to a society.

I see a lot of theoretical talk on here but pretty much can we skip the bullshit and just realize in todays world....

Progressives require a large big government enforcing progressive values onto society for their vision of society to come to fruition.

Because that is the only realistic way that will ever happen, and I find the justification that it can libertarian in nature turning into sort of theoretical exercise with no correlation to the politics of the current times.

Its rather simple, if a progresive governmnet wants me to have public healthcare for the bettr of all, I cannot for example seek private health care in Canada on my own...

If a society wants to put a cap on CEO pay to close the wage gap and be more equal, it is not being libertarian.

Pretty much I think its time to call a spade a spade. 

If you did make a serious attempt to understand what people were saying you wouldn't bring up silly strawmen like government provided health-care or maximum wages. 

Libertarian socialists are not social democrats. They don't support government provisioned goods nor regulated markets. 

You have yet to address my explanation of economies of scales vs. diseconomies of scales, for example. You have yet to address the idea that people would freely choose not to work for wages, like millions of self-employed people do today. You instead pretend that libertarian socialists are socio-democrats or state socialists, which is not the case. 

Consider the scenario where I and a group of friends decide to collectively till a field, grow a bunch of fruit, and then either use what we've grown or sell it to others and split the income. We all have an equal claim to the field as well as an equal claim to the fruits of our collective labor. That is socialism. Now, instead suppose that my neighbor Joe owns a field, but has a broken back. He wants somebody to take over and will pay them to pick fruit from his field and sell it on the market. That is capitalism. 

Both of these relationships can exist without government or with a weak government. As long as nobody forces somebody into one of these relationships, it is voluntary and therefore libertarian. 

Libertarian socialists predict that without a strong state people would prefer to work for themselves rather than work for property owners for a wage. That is all it is. No government nor a strong government necessary.

Hey, it's my turn to thank you.

Also, I think most people's idea of the word "socialism" comes, directly or indirectly, purposefully or otherwise, from propaganda and/or ignorance, which are usually pretty hard to overcome. Moreover, these are already people who, considering the selection bias, are less likelly to consider the (broder sense) socialist ideas or be willing to give it much o a thought, and actually tend to have a pretty strong reaction to BABYEATINGCOMMUNISTSCUM. The fact the term "socialism" has originally and continuosly been used in another sense by those who actually study and/or participate in the movements the term describes seems to not always be enough to overcome this.

Sure, if you assume "libertarian socialists" like big states, then the term is indeed an oxymoron given an baseless assumption. Which matters vey little.

As an example, Proudhon, the first one to pubiclaly call himself "anarchist" on a book and using definitions compatible with those of the anarchist movement, did so in a book titled "What is Property? An inquiry into the principle of right and of government", in which he in a single stroke conflates property (private and of the means of producion, in particular) with theft and denounces all forms of government. That (but not necessarily only that) has been called libertarian socialism, for reasons which should be obvious and are self-consistent.

Also, this all doens't only exist in the realms of theory. There are many people who organise themselves according to these principles in a smaller scale (as in, not an entire country), as well as have been some experiences in which large-scale anarchism, or something trying to approach it, has been brought into practice, even nowadays. Be that as it may, it's a fact that many people advocate for these ideas and practices, and that "libertarian socialist" is a meaningfull, descriptive term for those people, regardless of wether they're right or wrong or on the actual applicability or feasibility you or anyone else ascribe to their beliefs.

The discussion here is wether the term makes sense, not wether the philosophies described by such term could come to fruition with good results in this or that context.