Jump to content

Talk:Libertarian socialism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jadon (talk | contribs) at 03:51, 13 November 2020 (→Criticism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former featured articleLibertarian socialism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
March 3, 2004Featured article reviewDemoted
January 7, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article

RFC/User Conduct for User:BlueRobe

Editors with an opinion about User:BlueRobe's conduct in the disputes above may comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BlueRobe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigK HeX (talk • contribs) 06:39, 6 September 2010 UTC) (UTC)

Cleanup for length

@Cinadon36, this article has been tagged for length cleanup for two+ years, in case you have time to work the magic that you did at History of anarchism. czar 11:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Czar, now its the first item on my to-do list. : Cinadon36 (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still a somewhat new editor. Could you point me toward WP guidelines about "tagged for length cleanup"? I've noticed a similar overbulkiness in other articles and, though I personally find them too unwieldy to be helpful in an encyclopedic fashion — sometimes I've given up on W'pedia and bought a printed-on-paper book instead — I'm really reluctant to project this onto the target user.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have you already read Wikipedia:Article_size? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talib1101 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much!
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The major obstacle, in my opinion, is the structure of the article. It is kind of a list of other ideologies or currents that have been named libertarian socialism. The scope of the article should not be to present every little detail of libertarian socialism history- it should explain its history (briefly), philosophy, and major currents (2-3). When we sort out what to do with the structure of the article, the haircut won't be that difficult.Cinadon36 (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That problem is inevitable because (like many of the political science article with compound titles) this probably really isn't a distinct topic, it's a two word sequence that has been used in many different ways. In these cases, the experts would be those who could provide overviews of the usage of the term. In this respect philosophers are creators, not experts. In some other areas like right libertarianism and left libertarianism I know enough to be pretty sure of myself and feel that we should cut them down to short articles about the meanings and usages of the term. I suspect that this is also the case with Libertarian socialism but am less knowledgeable there. Is this a real, distinct topic, or is it a two word sequence which has had widely varying usages? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a real, distinct topic, or is it a two word sequence which has had widely varying usages?

Interestingly enough, I'm not finding this topic covered independently from "anarchism". For example, the "libertarian socialism" entry in Gay & Gay's Encyclopedia of Political Anarchy equates "libertarian socialism" as a synonym for "anarchism". The gist of the entry is that what we cover as "anarchism" has been known as just plain "libertarianism" for most of its history, e.g., that it refers to the socialist tradition within anarchism, as distinguished from "right libertarianism", confusingly shortened to just "libertarianism" in the United States. This is to say that libertarian socialism could be covered as a synonym of anarchism within that article or within another section that discusses the transformation/distinctions of the term "libertarianism" or, as an aside, variants of socialism.
The Oxford Encyclopedia of American Cultural and Intellectual History gives the phrase a passing mention in a very similar setup: "hence 'libertarian socialism' is equivalent to 'socialist anarchism.'"
czar 04:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It hard to find the difference (if any) of the term libertarian socialism to anarchism. But the real problem is the scrutiny of RS that examine Libertarian Socialism as a distinct current. (maybe because it is not) Any proposals on how to go ahead? Cinadon36 (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I 've had a look at the archived discussions and it seems to me that there are plenty of talks around the same issue we are dealing with now.

  • Archive 1: ie 3rd and last section (then untitled)
  • Archive 2: Look at "Suggested Sets", "Anarchism" and "Why here, and not Anarchism?"
  • Archive 3: look at "Why oh why does it deal with Anarchism and not Libertarian socialism"

If we do not deal with this, relevant questions will continuously pop up and I feel it 's hard for someone to decide by himself on what changes(reforms) should be implemented. My opinion (mild) is that we Keep lede and Overview, delete everything else and start again. Cinadon36 (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be similar. With the caveat that while I'm good at noticing and sorting out such things, I don't have the expertise that others above have in this portion of libertarianism. Evolve it toward coverage of the term. But, if so, is there content that should get moved to Anarchism? North8000 (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Pinta and Berry’s conclusion draws on some of the cross-currents of socialist thinking expressed in these chapters and identifies the most powerful areas of convergence in the gap between social democracy and Bolshevism on the one hand, and anarchist individualism on the other. Their analysis treats libertarian socialism as a form of anti-parliamentary, democratic, antibureaucratic grass roots socialist organisation, strongly linked to workingclass activism. Locating libertarian socialism in a grey area between anarchist and Marxist extremes, they argue that the multiple experiences of historical convergence remain inspirational and that, through these examples, the hope of socialist transformation survives. The potential for revolutionary change continues to rest on the possibility of convergence rooted in social struggles, because it is here that affinities are forged and mutual dialogue takes place" from the introduction of ) Alex Prichard; Ruth Kinna; David Berry (2017). Libertarian Socialism: Politics in Black and Red. PM Press. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-62963-390-9.. As for your question, it will take some time to check the article (every section is an article by itself) I need a week or so. Cinadon36 (talk) 06:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After a skim of that concluding Pinta/Berry chapter, I wonder whether that quoted goal (from the introduction) was more aspirational for the authors than accomplished in practice. I would be interested if you find any arguments in the book that libsoc is materially different from the content in our "anarchism" article in anything but terminology. I.e., if the idea is that libsoc accommodates "councilism", my understanding is that would still fit within the non-individualist part of anarchism that accommodates local democracy (in other words, is that just a surface-level difference in terminology again?) And no particular rush—this article has been a mess for quite some time czar 11:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it be via. leaving a very short article on the term (vs. a redirect) or addressing the term at the redirect target, I think that it would be good to at least briefly (even 1-2 sentences) address the term somewhere. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To perplex the matter a little bit more, there is this WP article also: Left anarchism. Libertarian socialism is closely related to anarchism. Have gone through Levy's book and that is my feeling. Different authors link LS to different currents (ie anarcho-communism, Bookchin's communalism). Also in communalism: "A prominent libertarian socialist, Murray Bookchin, defines the communalism political philosophy that he developed as "a theory of government or a system of government in which independent communes participate in a federation", as well as "the principles and practice of communal ownership". The term 'government' in this case does not imply an acceptance of a state or top-down hierarchy.[1][2]". It's a mess. Cinadon36 (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it extends to most of the "hyphenated" libertarianism articles. (for example right libertarian and left libertarian) I've pretty much come to the conclusion that all of those should be deprecated to short articles covering the common meanings and usages of those terms. A more meaningful breakdown of libertarian articles would be by time and place. We seem to be chasing ghosts when we try to cover it by the "hyphenated" strands of libertarianism. "Place" is important in many ways, a big one being that even the meaning of "libertarianism" is very different in the US vs Europe. North8000 (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can handle this article as a starting point / template for dealing with the others. North8000 (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some sections of this article are identical to Libertarian Marxism.Cinadon36 (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So here's my take and proposal. "Libertarian socialism" is more of a two-word sequence that has been used with varying meanings and is not really a distinct topic. Cut the article down to about 1/4 of it's size, with the focus on the definitions and usages of the term. Regarding material that might go, if it is primarily on the TERM and it's usage (since there is no such distinct topic) if it's too detailed / too off on individual tangents, let it go. If it is good material that is on a distinct topic, maybe move it to where that distinct topic is covered. Also maybe use it to expand/cover libertarianism in specific places and times, which I think is the real detailing of the variations of libertarianism. After we finish this one, move on the most of the other "two-word-libertarian" articles which have the same problem. North8000 (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"A two-word sequence ... with varying meanings", but isn't one of those meanings more way prominent than the rest, proportionate to its usage in sources? My suggestion would be to describe libsoc as a synonym of anarchism in the existing Libertarianism#Etymology section (I started to make a separate article on the definition of libertarianism/anarchism or the relation between anarchism/socialism to this effect and then found this extant section). Anything that needs to be said on anarchism's tradition as a left-aligned political philosophy and its relation to the term "libertarianism" has a natural fit in this existing section. Are there sources that cover the other "varying meanings", I imagine, e.g., socialism based in liberty, for a literal definition? If not, then I wouldn't worry about disambiguating "liberarian socialism"—it can just be a redirect with obvious links on where to read more. Eh? czar 02:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. There are things that I'm good at (ability to analyze/notice the types of things that I'm writing about) but I don't have the level of expertise on this topic that I think that you and others here have. I'm more trying to propose/ crystallize a direction than have any strong opinion on this.North8000 (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the recent changes at the article Anarchism, I think some of the longer subsections under "Notable tendencies" could be trimmed down to focus more directly on how each tendency relates to Libertarian socialism as a whole. Another point to mention is that "Anarchism" is listed under "Political roots", but classical anarchism was a libertarian socialism not so much a root or precursor. Please let me know your thoughts. Oeqtte[t] 10:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this article needs some serious trimming. It is far too long and difficult to read. Cinadon36 10:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to list most of the ideologies that are currently listed, but they should be trimmed down to focus on what you wrote or at least not be a mere repeat of the article's lead. I hope they can be better listed and discussed like it was done here, without removing any listed ideology.--Davide King (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davide King: Anarchist socialism would also include post-classical schools, no? Is there some reason why they shouldn't be included? All is part of libertarian socialism afterall. Kindly, Oeqtte[t] 08:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they should be included. I wrote that because as of now it only includes classical anarchism. As far as I know, I always understood anarchism as a whole to be a libertarian anti-capitalism and socialist movement, for they're all opposed to capitalism and their economics fit well within the broad socialist tradition. Green anarchism is still socialist as it is anti-capitalist, incorporating ecology to socialist economics; or the post-left seems to be very close to anarcho-communist economics, just like Godwin and Stirner have also been seen as communists in practice within the anarchist tradition; even if they may personally deny or reject this. That's why anarcho-capitalism isn't generally seen as part of anarchism, because it supports capitalist property rights and social relations, whether clearly or tacitally (if by anarcho-capitalism is merely mean some form of voluntaryism, which isn't actually the case, then there's already anarchism without adjectves and synthesis anarchism for that, many decades before anarcho-capitalism was even a thing); and national-anarchism is generally seen as a far-right trojan horse and its acceptance of racism, sexism et all to be fine as long as it's voluntary (the same argument used by anarcho-capitalists) in their tribal communities which is at odds with anarchism's opposition to hierarchy.--Davide King (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sorry, there are some post-classical schools mentioned in the "Other tendencies" section that I haven't got around to organising. If we're in agreement I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to convince me of. "Anarchist socialism" only implies there are anarchist and non-anarchist currents of socialism, not that there are socialist and non-socialist currents of anarchism. Oeqtte[t] 09:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I always thought too, Oeqtte. I wrote that because anarchist-related articles still include anarcho-capitalism (see Anarchist economics), which should be discussed only in Anarchism and capitalism and Issues in anarchism; and not in every anarchist-related article, especially when most of the time it ends up writing that most anarchists and sources reject that, etc. (see The majority of anarchist theorists do not consider anarcho-capitalism as a part of the anarchist movement due to the fact that anarchism has historically been an anti-capitalist movement and for definitional reasons which see anarchism incompatible with capitalist forms.[2][114][115][116][117][118][119][120] as an example).--Davide King (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Anarcosocial-communist" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Anarcosocial-communist. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist socialism or Socialist anarchism?

Oeqtte, I don’t understand why you think that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which uses the term socialist anarchism[1], is an insufficient source. Do you have a more reliable source? Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Individualism, Libertarianism, and Socialist Anarchism // Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  • I feel that we shouldn't be asking ourselves which term is more correct. We should be asking: which term is most frequently used at thethe literature? Cinadon36 12:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Гармонический Мир, I prefer anarchist socialism for the simple fact it means socalism that is anarchist (i.e. exactly what the section is about) whereas socialist anarchism means anarchism that is socialist and is mainly used by those who include anarcho-capitalism or view individualist anarchism as being non-socialist, despite individualist anarchists considering themselves as such and collectivists and communists agreeing with it, notwithstanding their dfferences. I think only people like Bookchin didn't consider individualists socialists and used socialist anarchism; then again, Bookchin also didn't consider Proudhon a socialist (although at times mentioning the individualistic artisanal socialism of Proudhon) despite Proudhon being one, aknowledged by both other socialists and sources. Either way, I agree with Cinadon36. I just think Anarchist socialism is fine and I wouldn't know of how else title it.--Davide King (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Гармонический Мир, that's not really true as many anarchists clearly and proudly called themselves socialists and saw themselves part of the movement, indeed the libertarian, anti-state socialism one (this is from what I've been reading and searching too). To me, it seems clear that anarchist socialist is perfectly fine, for we're talking about socialism that is anarchist, not anarchism that is socialist. Furthermore, the source you gave use socialist anarchism because it also talks about anarcho-capitalism, which seems to confirm my view that socialist anarchism is really used vis-à-vis anarcho-capitalism (see "The Trouble With Socialist Anarchism"), usually conflated with social anarchism (ignoring or misunderstanding individualist anarchists who called themselves socialists, were for socialism, etc.) and so anarchist socialism is the better choice.--Davide King (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Гармонический Мир, I don't get why you mentioned them, for there's no mention of them in the article (which is what we're discussing about) and they're a minority. Either way, that doesn't mean they aren't actually socialists, or even communists, just because they reject the term. Godwin and Stirner are considered both anarchist and communist, but they didn't label themselves either.--Davide King (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davide King: Is it necessary to have two separate anarchist sections at all? As I mentioned above, anarchism shouldn't be considered among the "Political roots" if it is itself a libertarian socialism. I would think the content of the first section could be moved to the second. What are your thoughts? Oeqtte[t] 09:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic socialism

The IP 91.127.237.140 claims that Democratic socialism is usually statist in nature and does not push for a anarchist society. Libertarian socialism on the other hsnd is fundamentally anti-statist, and is firmly anarchist but that is their personal opinion. While democratic socialism may be seen as closer to social democracy, there is also a revolutionary tradition within democratic socialism that would fit libertarian socialism, so I believe their opinion on this mutually exclusivity is wrong. We also mention people like Peter Hain and Noam Chomsky who emphasiz[e] that state intervention should be supported as a temporary protection while oppressive structures remain in existence, with Hain seeing libertarian socialism as as minarchist rather than anarchist, favoring radical decentralization of power without going as far as the complete abolition of the state.

Then the IP writes If you have a source that establishes a solid connection between libertarian socialism and democratic socialism, I would like to see it. But so far you have provided no such source but they are the one proposing the change, so the onus is on them to provide the source which mentions democratic socialism as contrasted and opposed to libertarian socialism; neither of the two given sources say that and they only mention Bolshevism, Leninism, fabianism and social democracy, which is what is summarised in the lead; they make no mention of democratic socialism.--Davide King (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We also have a sourced section about the labour movement and parliamentary politics.--Davide King (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still is class-C and has lengthy cleanup. Tcochran6 (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Here, the IP 2606:A000:1000:C081:3C0E:9B9F:8759:FADB re-added the Criticism section, without even adding the tag correctly put by Oqwert. I simply removed it, even though I am an inclusivist, because it violated NPOV, due weight and fringe. I am all for adding criticism of libertarian socialism, but it needs to be based on mainstream and scholarly sources, not fringe and one-sided right-libertarian and New Right ones. I mean, is right-libertarian criticism even mentioned in books that discuss criticism of libertarian socialism? Is criticism of libertarian socialism itself notable? I would note that we have Criticism of communist party rule, Criticism of Marxism, Criticism of socialism, Economic calculation problem, Mass killings under Communist regimes and I could go on and on, but we do not have a Criticism section at Right-libertarianism, we do not have a Criticism of conservatism, Criticism of fascism (a redirect to section), Criticism of liberalism (a redirect to section), Criticism of populism and Criticism of nationalism (a redirect to section), so how is "[t]he entire article is a viewpoint from the left"? I do not see why Libertarian socialism ought to have a section when it is from such a POV and fringe view. If there are no notable mainstream or scholarly criticism, then it is undue we do not need a section, especially if the criticism is very similar to Criticism of anarchism. Finally, the onus is on those who want to add this section. I do not think we should have a section at all if it is like this. At the very least, it ought to be tagged back. Davide King (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always skeptical of criticism sections as being coatracks and also because they plant a flag for presence or over-presence of something that maybe shouldn't be in the article. But on the flip side, I think that you are positing a higher standard for the presence of criticism than is the norm for Wikipedia. I think that the key points of the criticism section should be included. The "oxymoron" one is pretty widespread as in practice socialistic governments inevitably have had a very powerful central government. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it was so "widespread", why it is touted only by fringe sources or other libertarians? And why are the socialistic governments that governed the Western world in a more reformist or pragmatic sense excluded? Why is it that only the Soviet Union et al. are considered socialist (even though it is mainly anti-communists and Marxist–Leninists who think so), when right-wing critics lamented centre-left policies, essentially the post-war consensus, as socialism, but then making an exception, as you did here, that "socialistic governments inevitably have had a very powerful central government", even though that is not true for the same socialistic, centre-left governments in the Western world they decried and still decry as socialist? If all we have are sources from a 1959 book and American libertarian and right-wing think tanks such as the American Institute for Economic Research, the Cato Institute and the Institute of Economic Affairs, then sorry but this is not a good start for a Criticism section. We do not have a criticism section for right-libertarianism, even though there are actually scholarly, not fringe, sources that criticise it, so I do not see how I am positing a higher standard. If wanting more than one-sided think thanks criticism is higher standard, then I am guilty of that. Note that for Democratic socialism we have both a Support and Oppose section, which is more in line with Wikipedia:Criticism. The restoring of the section also removed the correct tagging added by Oqwert. I removed it because there is no consensus for it and because it was so bad that nothing could come out of it. If you or any other user try again, this time using mainstream and scholarly sources, now that would be a start for a criticism section and I would not have felt the need to delete it because it was not improvable since if criticism from mainstream and scholarly sources would be found and added, the current criticism would be undue anyway and be removed as a result. Davide King (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I made my argument and expressed my opinion. I'm ambivalent about it existing as a section, think that the the common criticisms should be somewhere in the article, and do feel that you are positing a much higher standard for the presence of the material than is the norm for Wikipedia. Regarding the topic that you brought up, one can't use current political dialog in the US as useful basis for anything. Everybody here describes anything about the other side as the more extreme variant than it actually is. My comment was referring to any national government that has gone anywhere near the technical definition of socialism. North8000 (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is very simple. If that criticism was truly relevant and notable, it would be reported in reliable secondary sources but none have been provided. Here, Oqwert provided reliable sources such as books and journals, yet none of this is done for the criticism, which is one-sided, fringe, or undue, unless it was reported in secondary sources. I find it funny you wrote "one can't use current political dialog in the US as useful basis for anything", but this is actually an argument in favour of deletion since in the United States socialism is a scare word used to refer to Communist regimes which, contrary to your comment, did not come closest to "the technical definition of socialism". Yet, given criticism follows exactly that pattern and push an American POV. I am using socialism as defined by the Historical Dictionary of Socialism, especially page 1 through page 3. As noted by Christian Fuchs, "[t]he notion of 'socialism' became associated with social democratic parties and the notion of 'communism' with communist parties." Yet, it is only in the United States where socialism is conflated with communism as defined by ruling Communist parties in Communist states, which is reflected in your two comments here. So no, I disagree that I am positing "a much higher standard"; I believe I am merely following Wikipedia:Criticism. A scholarly analysis, in the way Oqwert has done, would be much better; and unless this criticism by right-libertarianis is reported in secondary reliable sources to establish its relevancy and notability, then it is likely going to be removed in the future as being undue, with better criticism from better sources such as scholarly ones rather than one-sided think tanks. Davide King (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done weighing in, anything more is just for fun. When I said "technical definition" I'm referring to the core of most of them which is collective ownership of the means of production. BTW I don't think there is any agenda in the US to conflate the two; the largest experiment of all time (USSR) self-identified as both. In US discourse, everything about the opposite team is identified as the more extreme variant in that direction and what you are referring to is a case of that. One other note, Wikipedia notability is a criteria for existence as a separate article, not a criteria for inclusion into an article. North8000 (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except collective ownership of the mean of production is not the scholarly definition of socialism. I suggest you to really read the introduction to the Historical Dictionary of Socialism. Yes, scholars have noted that the Soviet Union still called itself socialist and dismissed those to their left or right as not being true socialist, yet scholarly analysis distinguishes between communism (communist parties) and socialism (socialist parties). It is also not clear what you mean when you wrote "everything about the opposite team is identified as the more extreme variant in that direction and what you are referring to is a case of that."
When talking about notability, I am mainly referring to WP:WEIGHT; if those comments by right-libertarians are not reported in secondary sources, then they are likely undue. This is a good summary:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

    Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
Davide King (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Explaining "everything about the opposite team is identified as the more extreme variant in that direction and what you are referring to is a case of that" In US political discourse the opposite team will identify:
  • Center right biased media as extremely right biased
  • Center righty viewpoints as "far right"
  • "Our country first" or "preserve our culture" viewpoints as xenophobic
  • Advocating slight moves towards socialism as advocating socialism or communism
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I originated the criticism section with the intent to add NPOV to the article and appreciate any help to make it better. I don't contribute to wiki very often so I always welcome guidance from wiki veterans. One important point I hope we can understand is that there is a long-standing tradition to create fallacious ad hominem attacks on any ideas critical to any aspect of Marxist theory. This manifests as attacking all counter points of view as being "bourgeoisie", "anti-revolutionary", or even "right-wing". The problem with ad hominem is that it attempts to delegitimize all critical information at the source, by attacking the messenger in order to block the message. Ad hominem has the explicit goal of preventing a NPOV. This massive Libertarian Socialism page is full of other citations that I would consider fringe and that use entirely left-wing sources. Why isn't anyone demanding that the article contains right wing sources throughout its body? I wouldn't demand such because Libertarian Socialism in and of itself is left-wing political theory. In order to create a NPOV to a left-wing article, the counter is naturally going to be right-wing oriented. As far as the comment about criticism to Libertarian Socialism being non-scholarly or fringe, there are plenty of scholarly works on the subject, and the lack of familiarity is merely for a lack of trying. Try reading any of the works of Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Thomas Sowell, etc. I didn't have the time to source everything I had on the subject, but I don't think this is a fair request as normally the level of sources provided would be sufficient. If you're being honest, would you really be happy with a Nobel prize winning Milton Friedman quote instead? I would wager that you'd also not like it, or anything critical, and you'd want to delegitimize his point of view with weasel words like "right-wing". Jadon (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libertarian_socialism&oldid=988433253"