It's not an oxymoron. It's the socio-economic philosophy shared by many folks such as Noam Chomsky and yours truly.


Overview

Libertarian socialists usually call themselves anarchists except when necessary to disambiguate or disassociate themselves with others, typically the anarcho-capitalists, who use the same term. Libertarian socialism should not be confused with capitalist libertarianism, the philosophy associated with groups such as the United States Libertarian Party. The two philosophies are only alike in their professed love of liberty and in their opposition to statism, hence the similarity in name; but are drastically different regarding the legal issues of private property. In this article, the terms libertarian socialism, libertarian communism, anarcho-communism and left-anarchism are used as synonyms.

The basic philosophy of libertarian socialism is summed up in the name: adherents believe that management of the common good (socialism) is necessary, but that this should be done in a manner that preserves individual liberty and avoids concentration of power or authority (libertarianism). Some libertarian socialists say individual liberty and societal harmony are necessarily antagonistic, and anarchist philosophy must balance the two. Others feel that the two are symbiotic, and that the liberty of the individual guarantees the harmony of the society and vice-versa.

All the critiques that anarchists develop are based on principles of decentralization of power and authority. So, while anarchists have a critique of capitalism similar to Marxism, they diverge in that anarchists also reject capital due to its tendency to lead to concentration of power (in the form of wealth). This critique highlights the distinction between libertarian socialists and Libertarians (in the North American sense): libertarian socialists advocate freedom while denying, to a greater or lesser extent, the legitimacy of private property, since private property in the form of capital leads to the exploitation of others with lesser economic power, and thus infringes on the exploited class's individual freedoms. Libertarians, by contrast, believe that liberty is impossible without the enforcement of private property economics.


Read all about it here:

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

Either you want the government out of your life or you don't.

How is "management of the common good" and "denying the legitimacy of private property" achieved without an authoritarian government?

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_ar ... archy.html

A bit more there as well, gives a very good description.

That is the best quote i could find to answer your questions. For further reading I would suggest looking into anarcho syndicalism as well, or reading speeches and platforms of the United States' Socialist Party under Debs in the early 20th century.

Small communes. I don't agree with everything in Ishmael, but it's one of the things Daniel Quinn got right, when he pointed out the effectiveness of such small groupings. Tribes, if you like. I don't think this type of system can work for any group greater than, say, 100 people.

I agree, except that maybe the number could be higher... at around 1000... that's small town size.

I think this small town phenomenon - where people know all know each other and naturally form a supportive community - to a large extent explains the red state/ blue state divide. In rural communities, you don't need Federal assistance, unless for disaster relief or mass unemployment, because people will help you out. In urban and suburban locations, there's more competition, more mobility and less community... therefore government is needed to pick up the slack of social assistance.

Can you grow oranges in Colorado? Can you grow bananas in Utah? I guess some people will just have to live without some of those things. pfffttt.

Exactly. I completly agree.

It is an oxymoron. It's the equivalent of saying we want big government with small government (which clearly makes no sense). The Soviets tried the anarch-communistic approach and it failed. It is the true utopian society which CAN NOT exist. And it's laughable to think that it can. NAME ONE SUCESSFUL STATE WHERE IT HAS SUCEEDED. Everytime communism is approached, the idea is the anarchy/communistic approach, however to make that happen they need a totalitarian autocratic big government. And they never acheive what they set out for. Communism as a system is seriously flawed in it's scope as well as it's follow through.

I find it rather ironic that these 'libertarian socialists' (as they call themselves) are always for more government programs. They never take the 'libertarian' approach. They always take the socialist approach. Anyone who thinks Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn are not for a big government are kidding themselves.

Building stronger communities doesn't mean abandoning global trade.

Read the whole article more carefully. Libertarian socialists don't want there to be a State and they don't have illusions about Utopia.

"In lieu of states, libertarian socialists seek to organize themselves into voluntary institutions (usually called collectives or syndicates) which use direct democracy or consensus for their decision-making process. Some libertarian socialists advocate combining these institutions using rotating, recallable delegates to higher-level federations. Others, however, have advanced strong critiques of federated systems, and these federations have rarely been carried out in practice. (For an example of anarchist federations, see Spanish anarchism.)

Contrary to popular opinion, libertarian socialism has not traditionally been a utopian movement, tending to avoid dense theoretical analysis or prediction of what a future society would or should look like. The tradition instead has been that such decisions cannot be made now, and must be made through struggle and experimentation, so that the best solution can be arrived at democratically and organically, and to base the direction for struggle on established historical example."

so·cial·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.
-Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
-The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

lib·er·tar·i·an ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-târ-n)
n.
-One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
-One who believes in free will.

You can't have a mix of these without displacing the individual property with community property (state property). Yet you say they want no state. Do they want a government? Something or Someone would need to disban the individual private property and place it in communes. That's my point... that's where this theory goes astray... and that is exactly why Noam and Zinn and the others all support big government today. The only way to go about acheiving this is to crush those who disagree with the theory, which requires a totalitarian autocratic regime. Which is exactly what the Soviets tried to do.

Bottom line is collectivism doesn't work and individual rights (Individualism-->which this system would take away) are fundamentals in a peaceful and productive society.

Individualism and collectivism are two things that can never be taken away. They are innate. They are part of our nature. You can oppress either one or both, but it natural for humans to struggle to attain these things and find the balance between them.

I don't think you reject the collective, as you claim to. Its possible your collective needs have already been met (at a church, perhaps?) and what you fear is some kind of imposed collective (such as athiestic humanism).

If I may stray from the topic a little......

I am reading Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival and I am not impressed by this "god" of linguistics. His main source of info is the NEw York Times, which we all know has a certain politic slant... I guess my point is that he really doesn't impress me with his work due to the lack of solid sources of info. However, he has a clever delivery that makes for a good read....Just my two cents

I'm not a libertarian socialist, but the concept and theoretical framework fascinates me. No offense, but it's evident from your posts here that you've read absolutely nothing about what you are attempting to condemn. Your constant posting of simplistic dictionary definitions to explain very complex subject matter is extremely irritating. As far as Chomsky goes, he's described himself as a "fellow traveller" to the concepts but is not a pure anarchist. There are different types of anarchism, just as there are different types of socialism, capitalism, etc. Not everyone who does not fall into your worldview is a "communist", equivalent to the Soviets. At least look into the theoretical considerations presented here more deeply before attempting to critique them. Thinking that everybody must fall into one simplistic category or another with nothing in between is extremist black-and-white thinking. Social relations and practices don't necessarily work that way.

1. I don't know anyone who has referred to Noam Chomsky as a "god" of linguistics.

2. Chomsky has actually has been very criticial of the New York Times, but that doesn't mean he thinks everything reported in the Times is bullshit. Come on, even Fox News gets its facts right most of the time.

HAHA! This quote says it all:


"Perhaps I ought to begin by reporting something that's never read -- the line about the 'arguably the most important intellectual' in the world and so on comes from a publisher's blurb. And you always got to watch those things (audience laughs) because if you go back to the original you'll find that that sentence is actually there -- this is in The New York Times -- but the next sentence is: 'Since that's the case, how can he write such terrible things about American foreign policy?' And they never quote that part. But in fact if it wasn't for that second sentence I would begin to think that I'm doing something wrong. And I'm not joking about that. It's true that the emperor doesn't have any clothes, but the emperor doesn't like to be told it, and the emperor's lapdogs like The New York Times are not going to enjoy the experience if you do." - Noam Chomsky

Thank you for claiming to read my mind... but I do reject collectivism as a philosophy. Because I believe in FREE WILL. And I believe that free will is extinguished in a situation where supposed "anach-communists" impose their beliefs upon individuals who don't agree with them by force through a totalitarian autocratic regime. They want the ends where everyone agrees to live in this type of society by using a forceful means. It won't happen and that's why they are mistaken. It's been tried before (where people mistakenly imagine it was for the good of mankind... someone like Stalin certainly didn't believe he was the a-hole he actually was) and has never worked.

I didn't claim to read your mind. I only said, basically, 'Its possible this is why you think like you do.'

I don't believe in free will... I consider FREE WILL to be a fact. FATE is something you have to believe in.

Anarcho-communism (libertarian socialism) is grassroots democracy. Its not totalitarian and I don't favor totalitarian means to achieve grassroots democracy because that would be totally fucking impossible. Right now, we live in a society in which things are achieved by forceful means. Don't you find it ironic that "freedom" has to be enforced?

Well then to counter your response, it's possible that you think like you do because you support what the Soviets, North Koreans, and the Chinese ect. have attempted. However, you realize not many rational people would support this type of totalitarian regime. So you craft a different type of response... a non-state involved socialism. Which sounds nice to a casual observer... but once they look at the facts they comprehend that the two can't coexist in entirety... someone or something has to convince the unconvinceable individualist society.



I believe in free will. I believe it's real, just as you say you do. I believe robbing individuals of choice is the equivalent of robbing them of free will. Pushing a collective society runs counter to pushing an individualistic society. The main idea is that it runs counter to inate human responses. The reason the individualistic society suceeds in bettering our way of life is that it not only spurs competition but surprisingly arranges for cooperation. This is the Walrasian equilibrium. In a true collective society... real markets disappear... economic growth dies... and the people are exploited by their government... which dictates the collectivist agenda. That is the FATE of every country that has pushed for communism.



Anarcho-communism when tried in Russia (and every other time it has been attempted... and please read some history if you don't believe it has been attempted) yielded a brutal totalitarian regime.

Freedom has to be enforced so it is not taken away. Law is enforced so it is worthwhile to have. Are you saying freedom can't co-exist with morality in the form of law? Such as>>> freedom, can't coexist as long as it is illegal to murder?

Free will is pure and total in nature. Freedom, as a totality, doesn't exist. It never will exist. You are never going to be free to do everything you want.

We can have 'freedoms', such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to own a petting zoo, etc. And of course, those freedoms sometimes need to be enforced. So they aren't free. That's why I prefer to call them 'liberties'.

Allowing too many liberties only allows the strong to oppress the weak, and then you have a lot of freedom for the few and not much freedom for the many. Its liberty for all and justice for some.