It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Why "Libertarian"?
It is recognized that there are authoritarian systems and behavior, distinct from libertarian, or non-authoritarian ones. Since capitalism's early beginnings in Europe, and it's authoritarian trend of wage-slavery for the majority of people (working class) by a smaller, elite group (a ruling, or, capitalist class) who own the "means of production": machines, land, factories, there was a liberatory movement in response to capitalism known as "Socialism". In almost every case, the socialist movement has been divided along authoritarian, and libertarian lines. The anarchists on the libertarian side, and the Jacobins, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, and reformist state-socialists on the authoritarian side. (And liberals more or less split down the middle.)
There was also a movement called "Propaganda by deed", around the late 1800's to early 1900's, in which some anarchists (Such as the Italian Anarchist Luigi Galleani (1861-1931)), believed that violence was the best strategy for opposing the state. This proved a disaster, alienating anarchists from the general population and exposing them to negative characterizations by the press... the "bomb-toting anarchist" is for the most part a creation of the corporate media- before this stigma anarchism was recognized as an anti-authoritarian socialist movement.
Many anarchist groups and publications used the word "libertarian" instead of "anarchist" to avoid state repression and the negative association of the former term. Libertarian Socialism differentiates itself from "Anarchy" as a movement only in that it specifically focuses on working class organisation and education in order to achieve human emancipation from the fetters of capitalism.
Why "Socialism"?
Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organisation, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability.
Originally posted by HeldHostage14
reply to post by ANOK
I agree with you all the way. There must be a government in some sort of way or fashion and Anarchy can make society a living hell. I support your post.
Originally posted by HeldHostage14
reply to post by IAMIAM
I do support self governing i just believe it is alittle hard to acheive. There will always be someone who thinks they are superior.
Originally posted by HeldHostage14
I do support self governing i just believe it is alittle hard to acheive. There will always be someone who thinks they are superior.
Originally posted by vivalarevolution
reply to post by ANOK
why self governing self sufficient people could change this world overnight. but someone always has to be the boss, that's why everytime someone tries to "rise up" "to lead" , they would be brought back to the real world, where we're all humans.
Originally posted by HeldHostage14
Hopefully what you say can be acheived you are talking about a world without evil or chaos, i sense you are a religeous man. Therefore when God alters this world the Devil will still exist. I think we should just wipe the slate clean from our government and just start new constitutions and so forth. Create a government that is open, where demands are met, and people are not ignored.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by ANOK
socialism removes economic freedom.
hence, libertarian socialism is an oxymoron.
As Socialism in general, Anarchism was born among the people; and it will continue to be full of life and creative power only as long as it remains a thing of the people.
Is it necessary to repeat here the irrefutable arguments of Socialism which no bourgeois
economist has yet succeeded in disproving? What is property, what is capital in their present form?
For the capitalist and the property owner they mean the power and the right, guaranteed by the
State, to live without working. And since neither property nor capital produces anything when not
fertilized by labor - that means the power and the right to live by exploiting the work of someone
else, the right to exploit the work of those who possess neither property nor capital and who thus are
forced to sell their productive power to the lucky owners of both.
Convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and that Socialism without
freedom is slavery and brutality.
The League [for Peace and Freedom] loudly proclaims the necessity of a radical social and
economic reconstruction, having for its aim the emancipation of people's labor from the yoke of
capital and property owners, a reconstruction based upon strict justice - neither juridical nor
theological nor metaphysical justice, but simply human justice - upon positive science and upon the
widest freedom.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
libertarian socialism is an oxymoron.
Originally posted by IAMIAM
Originally posted by mnemeth1
libertarian socialism is an oxymoron.
Uh, so is Anarcho-Capitalism...
Originally posted by Exuberant1
'Splain Yourself bro.
You've lost me.
How is anarcho-capitalism an oxymoron?