NationStates Jolt Archive

So there seems to be some debate over whether or not this (or related terms) are oxymoronic. I personally do.

Okay, so people would argue that it isn't oxymoronic because the left has been using this term since the mid-1800. At that same time, modern libertarians (*sigh* libertarain capitalists, ugh) were still being referred to as 'classic liberals.'

However, after a while the left abandoned 'libertarian' and took the name 'liberal.' Nameless, 'classic liberals' now became libertarians. But now it appears that the left wants to reclaim their old term.

Well enough is enough, I say.

Couldn't libertarian in this sense be referring to civil rights while socialist refers to the economy?

It is not an oxymoron.

libertarian in this sense be referring to civil rights while socialist refers to the economy

Couldn't libertarian in this sense be referring to civil rights while socialist refers to the economy?
thats what i would have thought

Couldn't libertarian in this sense be referring to civil rights while socialist refers to the economy?
Separately I believe they can be compatible - yet this is just a stickler for me, dunno why...

'Libertarian socialist' is an oxymoron. Socialists have authortarian or even totalitarian economic views.

Having hijacked the word Liberal, can't they just use that instead, and leave a term available for the original liberals. Wanting both liberal and libertarian is just being greedy. There is a Libertarian Party in the USA. It is not the Libertariand Capitalist party, but if you go and investigate you will find that it is incompatible with socialism.

It seems that as soon as some idea, based on individual freedom starts to make its way into the popular consciousness, then the label for this idea is immediately bestowed upon and or grabbed by the economic left wing.
As the ideas of the economic left wing are fundamentally incompatible with individual freedom ideals, this creates confusion.

It is not an oxymoron.

Yes it is. Libertarians favor extremely tiny government. Socialism is big government, making it incompatible with libertarianism.

Yes it is. Libertarians favor extremely tiny government. Socialism is big government, making it incompatible with libertarianism.
But the libertarian socialists are using it in the sense of "civil libertarian", not in the sense US Libertarian Party. There are, as oof now, multiple meanings to the word, due to both sides' borrowing and switching of terms.

As for me, if someone could come up with another way to say "socially libertarian" to stick in front of the "socialism" bit, I'd be fine with it. I don't care much about what term is used, just that there is one.

Yes it is. Libertarians favor extremely tiny government. Socialism is big government, making it incompatible with libertarianism.
no....libertarian (in this sense) refers to social issues, civil liberties etc.

so basically, its libertarian with regard to civil liberties, but still advocates some government control of the economy - two different spheres, and theres nothing to say that if youre libertarian with regards to one area you have to be libertarian for everything.

But the libertarian socialists are using it in the sense of "civil libertarian", not in the sense US Libertarian Party. There are, as oof now, multiple meanings to the word, due to both sides' borrowing and switching of terms.

As for me, if someone could come up with another way to say "socially libertarian" to stick in front of the "socialism" bit, I'd be fine with it. I don't care much about what term is used, just that there is one.

What is wrong with liberal. Which was wandering along quite happily being used for this, until the Libertatrian movement started to grow that is.

Depends on how you define the terms. There'll be people who call themselves libertarian socialists, but it probably describes a combination of the rights of the individual and some responsibility of the wellbeing of the community.
Which is where most people would fall....

What is wrong with liberal. Which was wandering along quite happily being used for this, until the Libertatrian movement started to grow that is.
Well, I'm not sure about elsewhere in the world, but here in the US it seems that "liberal" implies supporting the Democrats, the moderates. The whole confusion, for me at least, comes in with the fact that after the left took "liberal" from the right, it seems to have been redefined so that only part of the left could use it, leaving the right with no term at all due to some leftists wanting to keep 'libertarian'.

Maybe it would be easier to just put those words up for grabs and make new ones or something? I dunno. The whole fight seems rather silly to me. I just can't think of another word meaning "socially libertarian" to use at the moment.

However, after a while the left abandoned 'libertarian' and took the name 'liberal.'

no we didn't. the libertarian socialists and the left-leaning liberals were and are distinct groups. the libertarian socialist movement became less large and vocal after the russian revolution and the spanish civil war due to the perceived 'success' of the marxist-leninists, and the outright slaughter of many libertarian socialists by both the authoritarian communists and the fascists.

Hey "Libertarian" was a left wing term before you right wingers co-opted it. It used to mean anarchist-- as in anti capitalist. A libertarian socialist beleives in wide personal freedoms, but a workers controlled economy.

The term "freedom" itself these days has also been largely co-opted by the right to simply mean an absence of constraints on your action. Leftists believe a more comprehensive notion of freedom and the necessity of such things as the right have adequate food, a place to live, an education, a decent job and so on.

My sig says pacifist globalist libertarian democratic socialist.

So, no, I don't believe it to be an oxymoron, it is just an abbreviation.

A full breakdown would be very open(libertarian) with regards to civil rights, and socialist with regards to economics.

It's just so much easier to say "libertarian socialist" than to do the breakdown.

It's understanding the meaning behind the term that is important. At face value, with dictionary in hand and heart, yes the phrase is oxymoronic, but taken as an abbreviation for a particular viewpoint, it is not.

'Libertarian socialist' is an oxymoron. Socialists have authortarian or even totalitarian economic views.

Oh they do not.

However, after a while the left abandoned 'libertarian' and took the name 'liberal.' Nameless, 'classic liberals' now became libertarians. But now it appears that the left wants to reclaim their old term.

Well enough is enough, I say.

Lets play a game.

It's called "Treat the left as a homogenous group" :rolleyes:

Oh they do not.

Well some do. But those are unlikely to describe themselves as libertarian. :)

This term is, to me, quite clearly an oxymoron.

Libertarian now means a commitment to a political system which treats freedom as the most important value in both social and economic realms. There's a distinct lack of economic freedom in a socialist country.

This term is, to me, quite clearly an oxymoron.

Libertarian now means a commitment to a political system which treats freedom as the most important value in both social and economic realms. There's a distinct lack of economic freedom in a socialist country.

Your switching terms.

Socialist countries (by which I assume you mean something along the lines of much of Europe) are not libertarian-socialist.

Libertarian socialists do not advocate economic policy similar to that of Germany (say).

Socialism is a broad school of thought and encompasses many different beliefs. To regard it as a monolith is a bit silly.

it's kind of oxymoronic, but the most oximoronic political party name has got to be radical conservative.

If anyone is actually interested in what libertarian socialism means then check out http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

Your switching terms.

Socialist countries (by which I assume you mean something along the lines of much of Europe) are not libertarian-socialist.

Libertarian socialists do not advocate economic policy similar to that of Germany (say).

Socialism is a broad school of thought and encompasses many different beliefs. To regard it as a monolith is a bit silly.
I'm defining the words as they're most commonly used, not switching terms.

The words "libertarian" and "socialist" are mutually exclusive. To view them as otherwise is a ridiculous recasting of the words to suit someone's fanciful attempt at self-definition.

If "libertarian socialists" don't advocate the economic policies that define what socialism is, then they're not socialists. Socialism is nothing if not a set of economic policies desigend to redistribute income and level out the quality of life.

Calling everything socialist does not make it such.

I'm defining the words as they're most commonly used, not switching terms.

The words "libertarian" and "socialist" are mutually exclusive. To view them as otherwise is a ridiculous recasting of the words to suit someone's fanciful attempt at self-definition.

If "libertarian socialists" don't advocate the economic policies that define what socialism is, then they're not socialists. Socialism is nothing if not a set of economic policies desigend to redistribute income and level out the quality of life.

Calling everything socialist does not make it such.

socialism = something like "ownership of the means of production and distribution by the community as a whole or the workers directly"

libertarian = something like "maximization of freedom of thought and action - the opposite of 'authoritarian'"

what do they mean where you come from?

Nah, fuck off Capitalists. Libertarian Communism pwns j00.

It's uniquely an American opinion that "liberal" equals "socialist". The term libertarian is not very useful in the rest of the world, as the word "liberal" describes its core ideals just as well.

Having hijacked the word Liberal, can't they just use that instead, and leave a term available for the original liberals. Because "liberal" implies that capitalism will still be kept intact, such as the calling of Democrats "Liberals". For it to be associated with socialism would only further propagate the myth that American Democrats are socialists, when in reality they are centrists.

I don't find the term to be oxymoronic at all. Classic Libertarians don't find the ideas of laws against murder to be against their idea of Libertarianism. Likewise, I don't find laws against owning something which you don't use (such as apartments you rent out) to be contrary to my idea of Libertarianism.

(Not that I'm saying that the two are exactly the same, mind you, just that they're comparable in that neither should be allowed.)

Libertarians want to increase personal freedom at the cost of social/economic equality. Socialists want to increase equality at the cost of personal freedom. Yes, it is an oxymoron.

I'm defining the words as they're most commonly used, not switching terms.

(...where I am from) should probably be put on the end there.

The words "libertarian" and "socialist" are mutually exclusive. To view them as otherwise is a ridiculous recasting of the words to suit someone's fanciful attempt at self-definition.

Wow :eek:

That would really shock the first people to use the word "libertarian," that they were using the word they came up with incorrectly.

If "libertarian socialists" don't advocate the economic policies that define what socialism is, then they're not socialists.

You may find that no two 'socialists' adocate exactly the same thing. Which one is the real socialist?

No socialist advocates anything that defines what socialism is. It simply is too vast a school of thought.

Similar with capitalism.

Socialism is nothing if not a set of economic policies desigend to redistribute income and level out the quality of life.

Redistributing income is a bit ambigious, but I suppose it holds to a certain extent. But anyway, they are ends, not means.

Calling everything socialist does not make it such.

We never did that.

Couldn't libertarian in this sense be referring to civil rights while socialist refers to the economy?

Yes. That's exactly it.

It's also different worldwide. Over here, a Liberal is a supporter of the right-wing conservative party, because "liberal" is taken in the context of economics.

Libertanism is a small goverment.
Socialism is a goverment, without private property.

So yes, it is.

Libertanism is a small goverment.
Socialism is a goverment, without private property.

So yes, it is.

Socialism is an economic system, not a government. You can have collective ownership without rulership from a top-down governmental bureaucracy.

I do believe that Libertarian Socialists is in actual fact a wide ranging term that describes anarchism and libertarian forms of communism (EG Council Communism, autonomist Marxism) where there is no state whatsoever.

You can't get anymore small government than having no state whatsoever now can you.

Wikipedia Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Socialist) If wikipedia says it, it must be true.

Libertanism is a small goverment.
Socialism is a goverment, without private property.

So yes, it is.

Where do people keep getting these definitions from?

A libertarian community is one that espouses personal freedoms, and a socialist community is when where the MEANS OF PRODUCTION are 'owned' collectively or by the individual producers.

One is a system of government (or anti-government, as the case may be), and one is a social-economic model.

You could have a large or small government with socialism, or no government at all.

Similarly, you could have a large or small 'libertarian' government... or no government at all.

However, after a while the left abandoned 'libertarian' and took the name 'liberal.' Nameless, 'classic liberals' now became libertarians. But now it appears that the left wants to reclaim their old term.
Er, no. 'The left' has not taken the term 'liberal'. The American centre-left, perhaps, but that's all.

In short: no, it's not an oxymoron. I expected better from Deleuze...

I have to say that this is not an oxymoron, for many of the reasons pointed out before.

Socialists want to increase equality at the cost of personal freedom.

no, not so much.