Libertarian Socialism...?

[FatJack4391]

Now, I like most of you, when I first heard of libertarian socialism immediately thought of stupid contradictory terms. But how it works is that it is basically a mix of the theories, the libertarian theory of government and freedoms, with socialist theory of economics (at least that's what I got out of it)

Reason I bring this up is because my friend claims to be one, and after we discussed, I basically came up with that it is just a different name for anarchism.

Wikipedia on Libertarian Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism) for those of you that may be interested.

[LSD]

But how it works is that it is basically a mix of the theories, the libertarian theory of government and freedoms, with socialist theory of economics (at least that's what I got out of it)

more or less although of course the two are intimately related. That is, you can't have Soviet style economics without Soviet style government; a planned economy requires someone to do the planning.

That said though, socialism has never been about big government, it's about equality. In a bourgeois democracy that means maximizing the ability of the government to curb the free market, but in a post revolutionary society it means setting up the capacity for the people to democratically and equally govern themselves.

Therefore in its purest sense, socialism already is libertarian and true libertarianism is already socialist


Reason I bring this up is because my friend claims to be one, and after we discussed, I basically came up with that it is just a different name for anarchism.

Basically, although they do have two different historical traditions which tends to lead to a certain sectarian divide, subtle though it may be.

[syndicat]

Libertarian socialism is basically the same as social anarchism (as distinguished from individualist anarchism). But "socialism" doesn't mean government management of the economy in this case but ownership by everyone of the means of production (which is not the same as state ownership). And "libertarian" means self-management, that is, people who affected by decisions directly controlling those decisions. So it means workers' self-management of production, and participatory democracy in the communities and workplaces as the basis of the social structure.

[Janus]

I basically came up with that it is just a different name for anarchism.
Not necessarily, not all libertarian socialists are anarchists though all anarchists can be considered libertarian socialists.

[syndicat]

It's not clear that extreme individualist anarchists are necessarily libertarian socialists. This is true of social anarchists.

[Janus]

I don't think anyone here even considers anarcho-capitalists to be true anarchists.

[FatJack4391]

Yeah I basically assumed as much when my friend first brought up the theory for discussion.

[notque]

Libertarian Socialism contains Anarchism and Left Wing Marxism.

I.E. if you are an Anarchist, you are a Libertarian Socialist, but if you are a Libertarian Socialist, you may not be an Anarchist.

Anarcho-Capitalists are Far Right Statists and aren't really a part of this discussion.

This was stated fairly clearly before, but I wanted to indicate that left-wing marxism is included which was unstated.

[RedKnight]

Also some libertarian socialists participate in elections, while anarchists do not usually do so.

[notque]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 08:25 pm
Also some libertarian socialists participate in elections, while anarchists do not usually do so.
Anarchists do and do not. It's generally a tactical decision. I know many anarchists that participate in local elections, but spur general elections. I know anarchists that have went on long detailed rants whenever anyone brings up elections denouncing them.

It's a mixed bag, I don't think you can put either on them as a whole. "Anarchism has a broad back, it endures anything."

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 09:47 pm
Now, I like most of you, when I first heard of libertarian socialism immediately thought of stupid contradictory terms. But how it works is that it is basically a mix of the theories, the libertarian theory of government and freedoms, with socialist theory of economics (at least that's what I got out of it)

Reason I bring this up is because my friend claims to be one, and after we discussed, I basically came up with that it is just a different name for anarchism.

Wikipedia on Libertarian Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism) for those of you that may be interested.
Libertarian socialism is certainly not just a mix between American style libertarianism and socialism. We invented the term libertarian and it does not mean libertarian capitalism.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 09:35 pm
It's not clear that extreme individualist anarchists are necessarily libertarian socialists. This is true of social anarchists.
Except for the cappies they are socialists.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 11:07 pm
Libertarian socialism is basically the same as social anarchism (as distinguished from individualist anarchism). But "socialism" doesn't mean government management of the economy in this case but ownership by everyone of the means of production (which is not the same as state ownership). And "libertarian" means self-management, that is, people who affected by decisions directly controlling those decisions. So it means workers' self-management of production, and participatory democracy in the communities and workplaces as the basis of the social structure.
Has socialism ever meant gov't managment of the economy to socialists?

[syndicat]

Yes. this was the most common early 20th century concept. in "The Common Sense of Socialism" by John Spargo (a popularizer of Marx in the American Socialist Party before World War I), he defined a socialist economy as one where the state owns the means of production and centrally administers them, but the working class allegedly controls the state through a workers party. The only power that he assigns to the working class is electing leaders to run the state.

in Huberman and Sweezy's "Introduction to Socialism," a very popular little book here in the USA in the '60s among socialists, they define socialism as a centrally planned state owned economy. They thus regarded the Soviet Union as socialist, despite criticisms of it, because it fit that definition.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 05:25 am
Yes. this was the most common early 20th century concept. in "The Common Sense of Socialism" by John Spargo (a popularizer of Marx in the American Socialist Party before World War I), he defined a socialist economy as one where the state owns the means of production and centrally administers them, but the working class allegedly controls the state through a workers party. The only power that he assigns to the working class is electing leaders to run the state.

in Huberman and Sweezy's "Introduction to Socialism," a very popular little book here in the USA in the '60s among socialists, they define socialism as a centrally planned state owned economy. They thus regarded the Soviet Union as socialist, despite criticisms of it, because it fit that definition.
So Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin and arguably Marx were not socialists?

[syndicat]

So Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin and arguably Marx were not socialists?

Marx is unclear on this question. The others were libertarian socialists. The word "socialism" is vague. It has no exact definition. I suppose the idea is "social ownership of the means of production" but "social ownership" could be conceived as occuring thru the state, or not.