Is "Libertarian Socialism" a contradiction in terms?

Question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Answer 1

This is something that I've posted before that will explain why the term "libertarian socialism" is not an oxymoron:

One must be careful to make one's intended meaning

known when using the terms "socialism" and "capitalism"

(as well as related terms) because they have undergone

polemic re-definition over the decades that can cause a

great deal of confusion.

In the traditional sense, "capitalism" means the ownership

and control of the means of production by a class of

"capitalists" (in the traditional sense, the owners of capital,

or means of production used by workers other than the

capitalists/owners themselves) and an economic and political

system that favors this.

In the traditional sense, "socialism" means the ownership

and control of the means of production by the workers

themselves, whether as individuals, cooperatives, collectives,

communal groups, or through the state, and an economic

and political system that favors this. One should note that

this does not necessarily mean by the people as a whole,

nor does it necessarily mean state ownership, nor does it

necessarily imply a non-market form of organization;

historically, anarcho-individualism (e.g., in the free-

market form advocated by Benjamin Tucker) has been

an important form of socialism.

In the later re-definition, "socialism" means the ownership

and control of the means of production by the people as a

whole, generally by means of the state, or simply the

ownership and control of the means of production by the

state, or more broadly any form of central planning by

the state.

In the later re-definition, "capitalism" means the private

(non-government) ownership of the means of production,

and more generally the absence of central planning by the

state.

Matters have become especially confused because these

terms have been used in ways that include both the

traditional sense and the later re-definition of the terms.

Thus, Marxist-Leninists will define "socialism" in the

traditional sense, but at the same time refer to examples

of "socialism" in the later re-definition, in order to gain

support for totalitarian Bolshevik regimes that actually

destroy any examples of "socialism" in the traditional

sense; likewise, their "capitalist" opponents will do the

same, in order to support the belief that There Is No

Alternative (TINA) to "capitalism" other than a tyrannic

despotism. (In this connection, one should note that

according to Marx and Engels, the "dictatorship of the

proletariat" is a transitional stage between capitalism

and socialism/communism, which will not exist until

the state has withered away to nothing.)

In the same way, advocates of "capitalism" will define the

term with the later re-definition, but actually refer to concrete

examples that instead fit the original sense, even citing as

positive examples dictatorships such as Pinochet's in Chile.

And just as with "socialism", some opponents of

"capitalism" will do likewise in order to discredit it in the

sense of the later re-definition. At present, state-corporate

globalization, in which there is rule by states, corporations,

international financial institutions (IFIs), and the like, is

the typical form of "capitalism" actually advocated by

most avowed capitalists, rather than a truly free market.

This effectively means that there are (at the least) three

common usages of the terms "socialism" and "capitalism",

and so it behoves one to make clear in what sense one is

using these and related terms, and to what empirical examples

one refers.

One should also note the term "state-capitalism", used

by socialists (in the traditional sense) to refer to state

ownership and control of the means of production in

varying degrees ranging from capitalist dictatorships

such as Pinochet's through to Marxist-Leninist

dictatorships such as the Bolshevik regimes. This

extends the traditional sense of "capitalism", as the

state (at least partially) replaces the traditional "private"

capitalist class to varying degrees.

News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo/

Answer 2

I think so. Most libertarians believe in little to no government while socialism is big government that works for the people. Pretty incompatible.

Of course you can make the argument that libertarian socialists would help each other, rather then relying on the government. But that would be better described as collectivism.

Answer 3

Look the only answer to our problems is RON PAUL!