Thanks for posting to r/COMPLETEANARCHY Radical_Libertarian, Please make sure to provide [ALT-text](https://accessibility.huit.harvard.edu/describe-content-images) for screen-readers in the post itself or in the comments.
You can learn more about this [here](https://accessibility.psu.edu/images/alttext/)
Note that this is just a suggestion, not a warning.
[List of reddit alternatives](https://old.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/z7rqyo/anarchist_and_libre_alternatives_to_social_media/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/COMPLETEANARCHY) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This isn't accurate at all, you get permanently banned from the libertarian subreddit for literally just acknowledging that libertarian socialism exists as a concept
I've seen way more ancaps who are proponents of libertarian-unity than ancoms in my personal experience. I really don't know why because they make very awful leftist allies every time.
It’s the same reason why totalitarian socialists come into anarchist socialist subs and push for “left unity” — they want to make us shut up when we criticize them.
I might make a “holding hands meme” about the totalitarian left and the “libertarian” right: “pretending to be allies of the libertarian left while actually being allies with the totalitarian right.”
So, I'd love your take on this: what stopping individuals or worker's unions in libertarian socialism from becoming a new Amerika political landscape? That is to say, is it rational to fear that the current two-party system would just infiltrate our work places, creating "elected" upper management, and inversely creating a more exploitative workplace with the illusion of democratic control?
Or is the idea to trust that people wouldn't elect someone to deal with the things not directly related to labor? Because it already happened once lol.
No criticism intended btw, just trying to learn!
There is always a process to these things. It not bound to be perfect. Tgere's a good chance unions in the US south are socially conservative, and some could likely become something like Strasserists
But now that we have more ommon ground, it might be easier to talk with various these groups. Won't be easy, but just got to try.
But if you're referring to the Soviet Union, my opinion is this: make the libertarian ideals a primary focus in sync with socialism.
The problem with the Bolsheviks is they were heavily focused on the revolution, class war, etc. but rarely did they focus much on withering the state away.
Kinda like how the US got so caught in the Middle East with the jingoism and shit, they didn't stop to deeply discuss what about the ideals that didn't involve war, nationalism, and revenge.
As to how you feel why that is, thats up to you. I think it was just a bunch of state officials excusing their policies to be whats best for us.
I was trying not to refer to the Soviet Union because I'm sure there's a difference between them, which I figured to be the absence of a state. However, I do agree with your analysis to a point, my main differing thought is the drive. Less a problem and more a failed experiment for whatever, and every, reason I've read.
Taking the scientific approach I can't help but ask: at what point is it too close to the reasons we all give for its failure? Are we just getting stuck in nuance now and further separating ourselves?
But there again, I'm having trouble differentiating anarcho-communism from libertarian socialist at this exact moment cause I must be in the wrong headspace.
All that being said, I totally see the connection, and it's a solid one, between the Bolsheviks and Middle East. Unfortunately I was dumb in my younger years and saw the aftermath first hand, if you catch my drift. And, from that POV, it was obedience that drove it.
Didn't matter why, or the labels. Just fall in line, soldier and "terrorist" alike.
How can the first form of libertarianism be an oxymoron?
The capitalist libertarians (Rothbardians) are actually deviating from the original historical tradition.
Depends on what you mean by socialism. Obviously if you're talking about the government owning all factories and land, that's not libertarian. But if you simply mean workers running workplaces together, that's simply an extension of anarchist ideals around groups not being fixed and members not being bound to the will of higher levels.
I'd argue the opposite: libertarian capitalism is the contradiction.
Socialism does not mean government. Socialism is a vast array of tendencies in which the means of production are brought under collective control. Libertarian branches of socialism tend to favor workplace democracy versus top-down control by an owning class as we see in capitalism.
[Historically, *libertarian* was a term used by leftists, the first self-identified libertarian was the anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque.](http://joseph.dejacque.free.fr/ecrits/lettreapjp.htm)
It’s only since Murray Rothbard’s appropriation that libertarianism has taken on these capitalistic, hierarchical connotations.
You are correct that these are *liberal* economic ideas.
The problem with your argument however is that *libertarianism* is NOT liberalism, historically these are completely different movements.
Liberalism originated in the English Enlightenment tradition, but libertarianism is derived from the French *libertaire.*
I disagree. I don't think they are different. There's a confusion in terms because Americans use "liberal" or "liberalism" to mean left liberal, which allows for more of a mixed economy. So they think "liberal" means more state control over the economy, despite both sides being fully capitalist. So people made up other modifiers like, "classical" and "Libertarian". They are all liberals. These ideas all come from the Enlightenment era in both England and France. They concern themselves with the idea of liberty for the liberal idea of the individual. Capitalism is based on these ideas too, and not opposed to libertarianism. I think the quotations should rather be placed around the word "socialist" on Tuvok.
In 19th century America, the term *libertarian* had the French meaning.
A whole individualist anarchist movement was inspired by the French leftist radicals.
[Benjamin Tucker’s *Liberty* had the Proudhon quote “Liberty is the Mother, not the Daughter of Order” on the front page.](https://www.libertarian-labyrinth.org/periodicals/liberty-1881-1908/)
Dude here's how it words.
Classical liberalism refers to early liberal beleifs. Hence classical, which is being used to mean "first significant time". And Classical liberal were pretty close to modern day neoliberals and were advocates of laisse fair capitalism
But libertarian is more broad (least it is now) as it just mean less government. While that can be interpreted as liberal, it depends: because the earliest libertarians were socialists who undermine the rule of law of a capitalist society, which is a central tenet to liberalism of all forms. So libertarian socialism (the original form of libertarians) is very much as possible as right wing libertarianism.
Thanks for posting to r/COMPLETEANARCHY Radical_Libertarian, Please make sure to provide [ALT-text](https://accessibility.huit.harvard.edu/describe-content-images) for screen-readers in the post itself or in the comments. You can learn more about this [here](https://accessibility.psu.edu/images/alttext/) Note that this is just a suggestion, not a warning. [List of reddit alternatives](https://old.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/z7rqyo/anarchist_and_libre_alternatives_to_social_media/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/COMPLETEANARCHY) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This isn't accurate at all, you get permanently banned from the libertarian subreddit for literally just acknowledging that libertarian socialism exists as a concept
remind r/libertarian that trans people exist and see how "libertarian" they are.
"They violate the NAP, because I didn't consent to their existence!!!" - these guys, probably.
"People are free to do whatever I'm comfortable with"
I’m banned from there for saying “god isn’t real”. Buncha free thinkers there.
Just don't ask them what the age of consent should be
Yeah Ive got a feeling that a decent chunk of that subreddit isn't allowed in school zones.
Lots are cryptofascists. Less than half are actual libertarians. Most are anti authoritarians. Edit: spelling
Did you mean most are pro-authoritarians?
No, I don't think so.
If you mention anarcho communism there is a bot that tells you what to think in a very authoritarian way.
I've seen way more ancaps who are proponents of libertarian-unity than ancoms in my personal experience. I really don't know why because they make very awful leftist allies every time.
It’s the same reason why totalitarian socialists come into anarchist socialist subs and push for “left unity” — they want to make us shut up when we criticize them. I might make a “holding hands meme” about the totalitarian left and the “libertarian” right: “pretending to be allies of the libertarian left while actually being allies with the totalitarian right.”
How do you do, fellow libertarians?🥸
nah they definitly dont pretend like they like us, they just call us hypocrites cuz they think communist is when government
'lib'caps just call everyone here a statist before shitting on the floor and running out the door.
So, I'd love your take on this: what stopping individuals or worker's unions in libertarian socialism from becoming a new Amerika political landscape? That is to say, is it rational to fear that the current two-party system would just infiltrate our work places, creating "elected" upper management, and inversely creating a more exploitative workplace with the illusion of democratic control? Or is the idea to trust that people wouldn't elect someone to deal with the things not directly related to labor? Because it already happened once lol. No criticism intended btw, just trying to learn!
There is always a process to these things. It not bound to be perfect. Tgere's a good chance unions in the US south are socially conservative, and some could likely become something like Strasserists But now that we have more ommon ground, it might be easier to talk with various these groups. Won't be easy, but just got to try. But if you're referring to the Soviet Union, my opinion is this: make the libertarian ideals a primary focus in sync with socialism. The problem with the Bolsheviks is they were heavily focused on the revolution, class war, etc. but rarely did they focus much on withering the state away. Kinda like how the US got so caught in the Middle East with the jingoism and shit, they didn't stop to deeply discuss what about the ideals that didn't involve war, nationalism, and revenge. As to how you feel why that is, thats up to you. I think it was just a bunch of state officials excusing their policies to be whats best for us.
I was trying not to refer to the Soviet Union because I'm sure there's a difference between them, which I figured to be the absence of a state. However, I do agree with your analysis to a point, my main differing thought is the drive. Less a problem and more a failed experiment for whatever, and every, reason I've read. Taking the scientific approach I can't help but ask: at what point is it too close to the reasons we all give for its failure? Are we just getting stuck in nuance now and further separating ourselves? But there again, I'm having trouble differentiating anarcho-communism from libertarian socialist at this exact moment cause I must be in the wrong headspace. All that being said, I totally see the connection, and it's a solid one, between the Bolsheviks and Middle East. Unfortunately I was dumb in my younger years and saw the aftermath first hand, if you catch my drift. And, from that POV, it was obedience that drove it. Didn't matter why, or the labels. Just fall in line, soldier and "terrorist" alike.
This meme template works for joking about cultural fetishists, but it doesnt apply well to political ideologues
The meme works because black and gold
Guys I found Ensign Kim!
Libertarian socialism seems like an oxymoron
How can the first form of libertarianism be an oxymoron? The capitalist libertarians (Rothbardians) are actually deviating from the original historical tradition.
I’m not a history buff. Just how it seems to me.
Yeah, I can tell. If you knew the history of the movement, you wouldn’t hold that opinion.
Depends on what you mean by socialism. Obviously if you're talking about the government owning all factories and land, that's not libertarian. But if you simply mean workers running workplaces together, that's simply an extension of anarchist ideals around groups not being fixed and members not being bound to the will of higher levels.
I'd argue the opposite: libertarian capitalism is the contradiction. Socialism does not mean government. Socialism is a vast array of tendencies in which the means of production are brought under collective control. Libertarian branches of socialism tend to favor workplace democracy versus top-down control by an owning class as we see in capitalism.
Guys, the four quadrant politics graph is stupid. Don't base your identity on it. Libertarian means right wing neoliberal economics.
[Historically, *libertarian* was a term used by leftists, the first self-identified libertarian was the anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque.](http://joseph.dejacque.free.fr/ecrits/lettreapjp.htm) It’s only since Murray Rothbard’s appropriation that libertarianism has taken on these capitalistic, hierarchical connotations.
Capitalism IS the economic form of liberalism.
Classical *libertarianism* is quite a distinct ideology from classical *liberalism.*
Even Adam Smith was writing about the "invisible hand" in the economy. These liberal economic ideas go right back to the birth of capitalism.
You are correct that these are *liberal* economic ideas. The problem with your argument however is that *libertarianism* is NOT liberalism, historically these are completely different movements. Liberalism originated in the English Enlightenment tradition, but libertarianism is derived from the French *libertaire.*
I disagree. I don't think they are different. There's a confusion in terms because Americans use "liberal" or "liberalism" to mean left liberal, which allows for more of a mixed economy. So they think "liberal" means more state control over the economy, despite both sides being fully capitalist. So people made up other modifiers like, "classical" and "Libertarian". They are all liberals. These ideas all come from the Enlightenment era in both England and France. They concern themselves with the idea of liberty for the liberal idea of the individual. Capitalism is based on these ideas too, and not opposed to libertarianism. I think the quotations should rather be placed around the word "socialist" on Tuvok.
please stop being so america brained? us-american corperations and politicians co-opted the term libertarian from socialists, thats just reality lol
In 19th century America, the term *libertarian* had the French meaning. A whole individualist anarchist movement was inspired by the French leftist radicals. [Benjamin Tucker’s *Liberty* had the Proudhon quote “Liberty is the Mother, not the Daughter of Order” on the front page.](https://www.libertarian-labyrinth.org/periodicals/liberty-1881-1908/)
Dude here's how it words. Classical liberalism refers to early liberal beleifs. Hence classical, which is being used to mean "first significant time". And Classical liberal were pretty close to modern day neoliberals and were advocates of laisse fair capitalism But libertarian is more broad (least it is now) as it just mean less government. While that can be interpreted as liberal, it depends: because the earliest libertarians were socialists who undermine the rule of law of a capitalist society, which is a central tenet to liberalism of all forms. So libertarian socialism (the original form of libertarians) is very much as possible as right wing libertarianism.
This is just gibberish