Template talk:Libertarian socialism sidebar

Gandhism

Should Gandhian economics really be considered a form of libertarian socialism? It seems on the whole to be more a set of economic principles rather than a fully formed economic system or theory.

isn´t that the same thing. Gandhi´s economics have been influential in anarcho-pacifism as well as other social movements such as Vinoba Bhave´s movement for land redistribution in India. Gandhi identified himself as an anarchist. That is enough to put him and his economics in the libertarian socialism camp. --Eduen (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Use of Flag on "Libertarian socialism" Series Header

An expert editor wrote: "this is a fan-made flag (it is the recent creation of a Wikimedia Commons user called Pipcallas); if there is consensus in favor of a flag, at least use one that bears historical importance)"

As the designer of the "fan-made" flag in question, I agree with its removal from the series header. (I wasn't involved in its original placement.) However, the reason given seems flawed. The flag's (lack of) historical importance shouldn't be problematic. Rather, at issue may be its cultural importance to libertarian socialism. That is, a flag needn't be old to be established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkanella (talk • contribs) 21:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

philosophies dont have flags. this is original research. It doesnt need a flag because there isnt a flag. I removed it. 75.118.211.74 (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

It's an attempt to hijack the legitimate abolitionist libertarianism of Lysander Spooner to call his ideas "Libertarian Socialism"

Firstly, "libertarian socialism" is like saying "Capitalist communism" it's not a thing that is coherent or possible in a material reality if we're discussing systems of government where the government has coercive powers(the ability to use force, and realistically threaten the use of force). If we're discussing theoretical voluntary arrangements that exist under "Capitalism" or "limited capitalism," then fine, you could design a commune to be "libertarian and socialist" ...as long as people were free to leave, as they would be, without a coercive government to the contrary. Such things exist in the USA, for example, although the final arbiter of disputes is not the commune. ...But using "libertarian socialism" therefore means, that, as part of a political series, the label should simply be capitalism, or, if one isn't focusing on the Economic aspects of the system, but the entire system, "Individualism" or "voluntaryism."

An alternate focus would be Historical. If this is the lens Spooner is being regarded through, then Spooner belongs classed as a libertarian, liberal(classical), abolitionist, or anarchist. He can't accurately be called a socialist in any way. He purely and consistently sought to turn a voluntary profit, loved capitalism, and consistently opposed coercive government at every turn.

Now, maybe libertarian socialists willing to fill out WIKIpedia forms online are more willing to try to direct people toward their philosophy, as any striving self-righteous political entity will do. Fine. But then, let me just note that WIKIpedia is being used to disseminate propaganda instead of truth, or "something that maps to reality in a meaningful way."

Contrary to the above stated, Libertarian Socialism, at least the form in question, does not place the power in the state, but in the people. In examples such as the Zapatistas and (to an extent) Rojava, local councils decide economic decisions, with people free to propose policies, infrastructure projects, or anything else. It would then be voted on by the community, and if passed, put into law. A person would be free to take any job that they wish, leave at any time, and would be paid based on how much they worked rather than on salary. Another common feature is the partial abolition of currency, which still holds to libertarian principles, while still being entirely in the hands of the people. In essence, this involves currency being created on the spot when a person is paid and destroyed when a person pays for something.

Also, contrary to the third paragraph, it is not the libertarian left spreading propaganda to promote a non-existent ideology (You need to look no further than the Zapatistas and Murray Bookchin's Communalism to prove that statement wrong), but rather the libertarian right pretending that entire spectrums of political opinions don't exist because they don't align with certain philosophers which agree with them, who are spreading propaganda. The term libertarian does not mean one well-defined thing, and it was not spearheaded by a single philosopher, but rather is a general umbrella term that means the general freedom of people to act, and a lack of societal barriers of inequality between people or peoples. In fact, the first person to use the term Libertarian was the French libertarian communist, who used the term to describe his disaffinity toward the state, and wish for the people to have a more active role in their governance. To quote the article for Libertarianism "The use of the term libertarian to describe a new set of political positions has been traced to the French cognate libertaire, coined in a letter French libertarian communist Joseph Déjacque wrote to mutualist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1857." Stating that it is specifically right-wing or capitalist by using the "old definition" as an example is a self-defeating endeavor. Astraeus Antimatter (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Gross inconsistencies

I think that it is quite good that english version of this sidebar focuses more on 'non-anarchist libertarian socialists', and with that avoids colapsing itself in anarchism. But, despite that, the openess of the libertarian camp has been clearly extrapolated, including some people and concepts that are absurd from a rigorous point of view. If we assume, as have been commonly assumed, that libertarian socialism means an anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian politics, which includes an indissoluble critique of the State, then how could people like Yanis Varoufakis be included? He was the Greek Minister of Finance, an random claim that he is a 'libertarian Marxist' cannot serve as a basis for his admission here, because he clearly isnt. The next one is even worst: Pablo Iglesias Turrión. Dear god, his article lacks even the slightest mention to any libertarian position. He was the government, how can this mean anything but the complete oposite of libertarian socialism? At this point i am holding myself to not say something about Vaush. Besides that, the Anti-Leninism must be some joke or the remants of a vandalism, because it simply redirects to Leninism, if the intention is to redirect to the analysis section, then the code must be fixed. Classical Marxism also doesnt work there, i dont really know what was the justification behind it, but it should be removed. JoaquimCebuano (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the issue is that there's no defined policy as to what is and what isn't worthy of inclusion in general, at all, and the discussion of Vaush highlighted this, but it seems that this has been a problem for a while. Inkublu ❤ (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Why no Vaush?

Vaush is 100% a libertarian socialist, I don't see why this is a debate, everything he says comes from a libsoc POV, and most RSs cite him as a libertarian socialist, so I think we should include him as one. Max BuddyRoo (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Reliable Sources calling him a libertarian socialist:

[1] "Kochinski is a self-described “libertarian socialist”"

[2] "Vaush, a self-described libertarian socialist"

And on the actual Vaush article, it even says he debates from a "libertarian socialist perspective"

Along with that, I know it's not exclusive to libsoc authors/theorists, because then we wouldn't have Pablo Iglesias Turrión, so I see no reason to not include him in the sidebar. Max BuddyRoo (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The sidebar should only contain the most significant figures, not every random youtuber with an opinion. DuncanHill (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Vaush isn't just a random Youtuber, he is literally the number one online figure head for Libertarian Socialism in the 21st Century and one of the largest figures in the Online Left. He clearly has had a significant influence on many people and is the only mainstream figure that pushes these ideas online. The exclusion of him is clearly just an attempt to push elitism and the boomer mentality that "YouTube isn't a real job". 86.145.187.67 (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Someone identifying as a libertarian socialist shouldn't automatically be enough to put them in the sidebar. In fact is should be the other way around: we should look at whether reliable sources about libertarian socialism feel the need to mention the person. There are plenty of musicians with large followings who identify as anarchists but aren't included for that same reason. If you want to argue that there should be an exhaustive List of libertarian socialists then go ahead, but keep in mind that Category:Libertarian socialists already exists for that reason. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

"In fact is should be the other way around: we should look at whether reliable sources about libertarian socialism feel the need to mention the person." Why? There are very few sources talking about libertarian socialism, at least in the past few years, but it does get brought up in relation to Vaush. Not to mention, in the 21st century at least, he's one of the largest figures on the Online Left, more so the largest figure right now discussing libertarian socialism, besides Chomsky. He's definitely notable enough to be on the sidebar.

More so, by your logic the majority of the people mentioned shouldn't be on the list, but instead of talking about that, you only mention a YouTuber you have disagreements with, despite Hasan being on the template for Socialism in the United States, but I don't see you reversing that, despite you being able to make the exact same arguments about him. Max BuddyRoo (talk) 03:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

"Why?"

Because Wikipedia's template for libertarian socialism should be based on external sources that have done the same thing.

"There are very few sources talking about libertarian socialism, at least in the past few years"

That's part of my point. See WP:RECENT. Vaush has only been notable for a few years, which isn't nearly enough time to determine long-term significance in a centuries-old political movement.

"a YouTuber you have disagreements with"

I never said I have disagreements with him.

"despite Hasan being on the template for Socialism in the United States"

He probably shouldn't be there either. Feel free to remove him using my logic. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

He's not a prominent political theorist, statesman, or revolutionary, he's just some guy on YouTube. And the posted links just about how he describes himself and not about how others describe him. 4kbw9Df3Tw (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Bloated

This sidebar has grown bloated to the point of being unreadable. It seems like everything but the kitchen sink has been thrown in here, with little regard for what sources say on the subject. I would really strongly suggest people begin making cuts to this, lest it keep growing to the point of becoming useless. -- Grnrchst (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I've now attempted to whittle the list down to the bits of the subject verifiably referenced in the main article on libertarian socialism, removing all of the stuff that was synthetic. Unfortunately, this subject is so vaguely and broadly defined that I assume synth is always and forever going to be an issue with this sidebar. I worry it's just going to end up growing to its original size as more people add stuff to it, without any regard for what sources say, just because they think it fits their own definition of "libertarian socialism". --Grnrchst (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)