4 ms·

> Various supporters of the US Libertarian party (founded in 1971) argue that they own the meaning of the word "libertarian", that placing it next to "socialism

> Various supporters of the US Libertarian party (founded in 1971) argue that they own the meaning of the word "libertarian", that placing it next to "socialism" is a contradiction in terms, and hence that libertarian socialism (described circa 1850) cannot possibly have existed. An edit war and request-for-deletion war ensues. That doesn't sound very libertarian of them.

yellowapple 3y ago
I've been permanently banned from "the" libertarian subreddit specifically for suggesting that libertarian socialism is a thing that exists. It's almost as if their cries about things not being "real libertarianism" is and always has been good ol' gaslighting and projection.
- sashank_1509 3y ago
  What does libertarian socialism mean? I guess you mean to say, the means of production can be shared across all workers and still economic activity can be directed by markets?
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    That it's meant to be liberating. Historical libertarian socialists were very concerned with issues like female suffrage and freedom from oppressive social norms as much as economic relations - the sort of concerns that would be derided as 'woke' today. Many of them were anarchists and libertarian socialism is generally anti-authoritarian and often anti-state. They were also alert to the possibility of socialism becoming another oppressive orthodoxy; Emma Goldman is famous for saying 'if I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution' (although this is paraphrase of some wordier remark made in an interview). Murray Bookchin is probably the best-known modern exponent of these ideas.
  - yellowapple 3y ago
    There's about as many varieties of libertarian socialism as there are libertarian socialists, but your guess is pretty close. The usual endgame would be the abolition of the state in favor of cooperatives, unions, and mutual aid networks, though a complete abolition of the state ain't really necessary for a society to start to look simultaneously libertarian and socialist in practice. The big historical example was Spain prior to the fascists winning the Spanish Civil War; contemporary examples include Rojava and the EZLN (though the latter tends to reject any particular label). The thing most/all self-identified libertarian socialists have in common is the perception that capitalism and the state are, if not one and the same, heavily reliant on one another, to the point that abolishing one without abolishing the other leaves in place the material conditions that make both inevitable. It ain't enough to replace state agencies with private corporations, because those corporations will simply become the state - nor is it enough to replace corporations with state agencies, because the bureaucrats running those agencies will simply become the new bourgeoisie or outright aristocracy.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    Not necessarily shared across all workers, but, at the very least, owned by workers who actually use those means to produce something.
Anthony-G 3y ago
I’m amazed at the historical ignorance of the US Libertarians. For most of the past two centuries (since Proudhon), “libertarianism” without any qualifiers would refer to the socialist form – and as a synonym for “anarchism”. The politics of the US Libertarian Party has far more in common with classic laissez-faire liberal capitalism than pre-existing anarchism/libertarianism. Also, unlike the socialists, the individualist and the free-market branches of libertarian thought never had mass support. A mere 4 decades before the US Libertarian party was founded, an explicitly, self-described libertarian communist organisation in just one country had well over a million members (Confederación Nacional del Trabajo). It’s kind of tragic that American dominance of Internet culture has meant that even a decade ago, younger people that I spoke to were only aware of the more recent capitalist form of libertarianism.

yellowapple 3y ago

I've been permanently banned from "the" libertarian subreddit specifically for suggesting that libertarian socialism is a thing that exists. It's almost as if their cries about things not being "real libertarianism" is and always has been good ol' gaslighting and projection.

sashank_1509 3y ago
What does libertarian socialism mean? I guess you mean to say, the means of production can be shared across all workers and still economic activity can be directed by markets?
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  That it's meant to be liberating. Historical libertarian socialists were very concerned with issues like female suffrage and freedom from oppressive social norms as much as economic relations - the sort of concerns that would be derided as 'woke' today. Many of them were anarchists and libertarian socialism is generally anti-authoritarian and often anti-state. They were also alert to the possibility of socialism becoming another oppressive orthodoxy; Emma Goldman is famous for saying 'if I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution' (although this is paraphrase of some wordier remark made in an interview). Murray Bookchin is probably the best-known modern exponent of these ideas.
- yellowapple 3y ago
  There's about as many varieties of libertarian socialism as there are libertarian socialists, but your guess is pretty close. The usual endgame would be the abolition of the state in favor of cooperatives, unions, and mutual aid networks, though a complete abolition of the state ain't really necessary for a society to start to look simultaneously libertarian and socialist in practice. The big historical example was Spain prior to the fascists winning the Spanish Civil War; contemporary examples include Rojava and the EZLN (though the latter tends to reject any particular label). The thing most/all self-identified libertarian socialists have in common is the perception that capitalism and the state are, if not one and the same, heavily reliant on one another, to the point that abolishing one without abolishing the other leaves in place the material conditions that make both inevitable. It ain't enough to replace state agencies with private corporations, because those corporations will simply become the state - nor is it enough to replace corporations with state agencies, because the bureaucrats running those agencies will simply become the new bourgeoisie or outright aristocracy.
- int_19h 3y ago
  Not necessarily shared across all workers, but, at the very least, owned by workers who actually use those means to produce something.

Anthony-G 3y ago

I’m amazed at the historical ignorance of the US Libertarians. For most of the past two centuries (since Proudhon), “libertarianism” without any qualifiers would refer to the socialist form – and as a synonym for “anarchism”. The politics of the US Libertarian Party has far more in common with classic laissez-faire liberal capitalism than pre-existing anarchism/libertarianism. Also, unlike the socialists, the individualist and the free-market branches of libertarian thought never had mass support. A mere 4 decades before the US Libertarian party was founded, an explicitly, self-described libertarian communist organisation in just one country had well over a million members (Confederación Nacional del Trabajo). It’s kind of tragic that American dominance of Internet culture has meant that even a decade ago, younger people that I spoke to were only aware of the more recent capitalist form of libertarianism.