libertarian socialist/market socialism

[fionntan]

I know these two terms along with anarchism are bunched together alot can anyone explain the fundamental diffrence between them.

[ed miliband]

'Libertarian socialist' is used to describe a variety of different tendencies, both anarchist and Marxist. As a general rule if a tendency is anti-Leninist it'll be labeled 'libertarian socialist', though this isn't always correct (CLR James considered by some a 'libertarian socialist / Marxist' but he considered himself a Leninist, for example).

So-called 'market socialism' has nothing, or extremely little at the very most, to do with anarchism or libertarian socialism.

[Tablo]

Actually, mutualism is considered a libertarian socialist tendency. Mutualists are almost non-existent though.

[Ovi]

Actually, mutualism is considered a libertarian socialist tendency. Mutualists are almost non-existent though.
Even though it is regarded by many as market anarchism, mutualism doesn't exactly envision a free market. As Proudhon wrote in the General idea of the revolution (http://fair-use.org/p-j-proudhon/general-idea-of-the-revolution/)

Therefore if anybody has a claim on account of this inequality, it is not the State, but the other land workers who hold inferior land. That is why in our scheme for liquidation we stipulated that every variety of cultivation should pay a proportional contribution, destined to accomplish a balancing of returns among farm workers, and an assurance of productsBasically, market like activities are ok except when they're exploitative, which is different from the idea that all market exchanges are free and non-exploitative.
As for the op, libertarian socialism comprises many different schools of thought, anarchism, libertarian marxism and council communism being the most well known. Titoism and mutualism are two very different approaches, but both are claimed to be market socialist to some degree. Point is that most libertarian socialists, anarchists included, are not market socialists (but syndicalists, collectivists or communists) and not all market socialists are anarchists.

[Tablo]

I certainly do not think mutualism promotes the free-market. If that were the case I do not think they would be worth of being considered socialist.

[Thirsty Crow]

Titoism and mutualism are two very different approaches, but both are claimed to be market socialist to some degree. Point is that most libertarian socialists, anarchists included, are not market socialists (but syndicalists, collectivists or communists) and not all market socialists are anarchists.
I'm beginning to suspect that this "Titoism" is a matter of internet discussions or a confused product of misguided nostalgic people from the region (ex Yugoslavia, I mean).
It is not a political tendency, and nor was it a coherent ideological option when Yugoslavia still exiisted since it was the concrete historical conditions that engendered specific policies brought on by Yugoslav CP.
In my view, the best that market socialists have to offer is an option for a democratic management of the economy when the conditions are not yet favourable for the total abolition of wage slavery (and by that I mean the total abolition of the market, or rather, production for sale).
No one who desires to see a classless society should fall for that crap about non-exploitative market relations. Every market relation, even mediated by politcal forms such as workers' participation, is an embryo for capitalist restoration - it inherently engenders class relations.

[syndicat]

Tito's Yugoslavia was an authoritarian one-party state controlled by a bureaucratic class. It has nothing to do with libertarian socialism. The vast majority of libertarian socialists are anti-market.

[Tablo]

I agree with syndicat. I think it is wrong to even consider Yugoslavia to be market socialist.

[Ovi]

I agree with syndicat. I think it is wrong to even consider Yugoslavia to be market socialist.
I didn't say it is, but that it is claimed to be. Neither is exactly market socialist, Yugoslavia was a class society, thus not socialist and mutualism doesn't have much of a free market.