|  ginajudd | Sep 15, 2006 2:32pm | | This may be a stupid question, but its a real question. I've seen the words anarchy and libertarian together. |
|
| 
Sponsor |  Morosoph | Sep 15, 2006 4:22pm | There is a bunch of folks who call themselves anarcho-capitalists; there is some disagreement as to whether they are anarchists or not.
I would say that they are: not all potential anarchies are utopias. |
|
| 
Sponsor | | Yoza | Sep 15, 2006 4:52pm | | Noam Chomsky describes himself as a 'libertarian socialist in the anarchist tradition' if thats any help. Labels can be a bit of a distraction, I believe that all people are naturally anarchists or at least suffer from anarchist tendencies. I think you need do judge the individual on their actions, rather than the label they choose for themselves. |
|
| 
Sponsor | | electronicmayhem | Sep 15, 2006 4:55pm | Libertarinas are better described as Objectivists. work hard and keep what you work for. don't let the establishment take what you worked for. I wouldn't call it anarchism so much.
consult Leonard Peikoff and Ayn Rand for better explanations. |
|
| 
| | mlowther11 | Sep 17, 2006 4:19pm | Of course they are. "Libertarians favor freedom and oppose government action to promote either equality or order."
An
interesting article |
|
| 
|  AnarchieInFrance | Nov 7, 2006 4:58am | To answer this question, let's try to do a little bit of european history of the concept :
The "libertarian" word appears at the start of the 19th century. Etymologically, this words comes from the latin roots "libertas" (freedom), which has given the french words "libéral" (liberal), "libertin" (libertine), "libertaire" (libertarian) and "liberté" (freedom) . Its use become popular around 1848 with the french writer Joseph DEJACQUE, who use first this neologism (and was the first to claim this designation) in one of the first libertarian-labelled newspaper published in french in New-York in 1858 and 1859 : "Le libertaire, journal du mouvement social" (The libertarian, news from the social movement). Later, at the end of the 19th, it's Luise MICHEL and sbastien FAURE, who will take this name again.
It appears first as an ideology, in Italy, at the start of the 20th century ("libertario") in the very good book of Roberto GIULIANELLI : "L'anarchia nelle enciclopedie e dizionari. Note sulla storia di un lemma". This word is here first define of a sweeten form of anarchism.
According to the nice expression of Marzio ZANANTONI (in "Anarchismo", 1996), anarchism is an "exasperation of the notion of freedom", and it's an "outstanding love of freedom" (Gino CERRUTTI in "Il ruolo della organizzazione anarchica", 1973).
Therefore, It's because the anarchists put the freedom in the foreground ( and so the diversity, the respect of the other) that they proclaim themselves willingly as libertarian (cf Amedeo BERTOLO in "La passion de la liberté", -in-Réfractions, n°7, 2001).
This name of "libertarian" is broader, less reductive and less discriminating than the term of "anarchist", and allows undeniably a more flexible analysis. It's especially true that Libertarianism always be broader than the Anarchism to it's theoritical form.
Therefore, now we can answer to the question : the anarchist are so just a part of the libertarian movement. Theoritically, the set of the anarchists are only a subset of the libertarian.
Then, Yes Anarchists are libertarians,
but NO libertarians are not automatically anarchists.
I think I should so answer NO to the question! |
|
| 
| | pinkfloyd85 | Jan 13, 2007 2:43pm | | How can the sense be broader than anarchism - in what aspects? Not only social/political or what? |
|
| 
| | Hamfish | Jan 13, 2007 4:12pm | Yes Yoza has it with Chomski's comments and then Anarcheiln nailed it with his; 'yes Anarchists are libertarians and no libertarians are not automatically anarchists.'
I get a lot of flak when I use the term 'socialism' to describe a classless moneyless society based on common ownership of all the worlds wealth.
I have to immediately point out that it never did have anything to do with the state capitalist societies that Lenin and his elitist colleagues established in Russia and eastern Europe.
It could well be that my ideas might be better served by describing them as Chomski does, as libertarian socialist or even a libertarian anarchist.
The flip side of it is that some regard anarchism as being unorganised, but I have always found that anarchist groups I've had the pleasure of working with, are amongst the most scrupulously democratic organisations going. |
|
| 
Sponsor | | Thomas-Jefferson | Jan 13, 2007 8:23pm | 4. I am Libertarian who would not want to be called anarchist or objectivist. While the word objectivist sounds good (its nice to be objective, right?), Rand was a wicked witch, and I and many God loving Libertarians want nothing to do with her. She and her radical individualism are most certainly not synonymous with libertarianism.
Anarchy sounds bad at first, but if you really think about it could be a wonderful opportunity. Unfortunately, as Yoza points out Marxists have taken over the movement. People like Chomsky use the words "Anarchism" or "Libertarian Socialism" as a mask with which to promote marxist schemes and intents which have long been proven unworkable.
"Some Marxists have formulated views that closely resemble syndicalism, and thus express more affinity with anarchist ideas. Several libertarian socialists, notably Noam Chomsky, believe that anarchism shares much in common with certain variants of Marxism such as the council communism of left-wing Marxist Anton Pannekoek. In Chomsky's Notes on Anarchism, he suggests the possibility "that some form of council communism is the natural form of revolutionary socialism in an industrial society. It reflects the belief that democracy is severely limited when the industrial system is controlled by any form of autocratic elite, whether of owners, managers, and technocrats, a 'vanguard' party, or a State bureaucracy."
Autonomist Marxism and situationism are also regarded as being anti-authoritarian variants of Marxism that are firmly within the libertarian socialist tradition."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism] |
|
|
| | Hamfish | Jan 20, 2007 7:55pm | I think the question has more or less been cover in general up to post 8 and particularly well in post 7.
After that I fear, post 9 is leading more to confusion rather than enlightenment.
It needs to be pointed out that;
1) Yoza has been completely misinterpreted here. He did not say that Marxists have taken over the (libertarian) movement.
2) Chomski never at any time used words like 'Anarchism' or 'Libertarian Socialism' 'as a mask to promote Marxist schemes and intents which have long been proved unworkable' He in fact says the opposite as quoted in the third paragraph of Post 9 ".....It reflects the belief that democracy is severely limited when the industrial system is controlled by any form of autocratic elite, whether of owners, managers, and technocrats, a 'vanguard' party, or a State bureaucracy."
This 'Vanguard Party or State Bureaucracy' referred to being the 'unworkable Marxist scheme' Post 9 alleges him of promoting.
Whether this is just another typical attempt from capitalist apologists to try and confuse the issue or whether is simply comes from confused thinking, remains to be seen. |
| |
| |
Anarchy → Discussion