Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Libertarian Socialism

  1. Apr 10, 2010 #1
    There are references to libertarian socialism in Spain between 1936 and 1937.

    What led to its demise?

    Even if libertarian socialism is the natural extension of classical liberalism, it would be rather difficult to implement at present.

    I don't even think it would take place in a utopian society.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 10, 2010 #2

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Francisco Franco? Franco was head of state of Spain from October 1936 (whole country from 1939 on), and de facto regent of the nominally restored Kingdom of Spain from 1947 until his death in November 1975.

    Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Franco
     
  4. Apr 10, 2010 #3
    Why then does Chomsky refer to that period of Spain as under libertarian socialism?
     
  5. Apr 10, 2010 #4
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism


    ""Early in the twentieth century, libertarian socialism was as powerful a force as social democracy and communism. The Libertarian International– founded at the Congress of Saint Imier a few days after the split between Marxist and libertarians at the congress of the Socialist International held in The Hague in 1872– competed successfully against social democrats and communists alike for the loyalty of anticapitalist activists, revolutionaries, workers, unions and political parties for over fifty years. Libertarian socialists played a major role in the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917. Libertarian socialists played a dominant role in the Mexican Revolution of 1911. Twenty years after World War I was over, libertarian socialists were still strong enough to spearhead the social revolution that swept across Republican Spain in 1936 and 1937."[21]"
     
  6. Apr 10, 2010 #5
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain
    I believe it is usually referred to as spanish anarchism.
     
  7. Apr 11, 2010 #6

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I don't believe that it was, or rather, not completely so.

    See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War

    Franco and his allies were all about taking control (as in an oligarchy), which would be at odds with the Social Libertarian movement.
    And of course, WW II came along shortly thereafter.
     
  8. Apr 11, 2010 #7
    The anarchists within the Republican coalition were more or less crushed by the Soviet-backed communist party, the PCE. The anarchists and the socialist party, the POUM, advocated radical social reform, and in particular a radical new egalitarian approach to army discipline, and the PCE turned against them during the war, in particular in Barcelona in 1937.

    George Orwell talks extensively about the internal undermining of the Popular Front by Stalin in his book Homage to Catalonia (Orwell fought with the POUM, rather than the PCE-controlled International Brigades).
     
  9. Apr 11, 2010 #8
    There are more wikipedia citations than I thought there would be in an academic forum.
     
  10. Apr 11, 2010 #9
    Libertarianism is essentially classical liberalism, but by definition, libertarianism precludes any implemented economic system at all.

    Most of the world uses the word "capitalism" to describe the lack of any implemented economic system, even if socialism is commonly practiced voluntarily, such as historically in the U.S.
     
  11. Apr 11, 2010 #10
    Do you see anything wrong with the articles cited?
     
  12. Apr 12, 2010 #11

    Char. Limit

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Am I the only one who sees something wrong with the name "libertarian socialism", which makes about as much sense as "cold fire"?

    Libertarians are in general against restrictions, including economic restrictions. (Using Nolan's Square from his Political Quiz here)

    Socialists, which I believe are somewhat like liberals, believe in many economic restrictions.

    Thus, "cold fire".
     
  13. Apr 12, 2010 #12
    Restrictions would be legal recourse for enforcing the social philosophy. Libertarian Socialists would apparently believe in a socialist philosophy instituted through free choice without any legal or legislative coercion. Which is probably why the term has been applied to anarchism.
     
  14. Apr 12, 2010 #13
    You mean like PF?
     
  15. Apr 15, 2010 #14
    Sounds just like the U.S. prior to the regulatory state to me. The Amish seem to be an example of those practicing it without physical coercion.

    Historically the U.S. has had no restrictions on such a thing at all, and has been practiced freely by many. And I've never heard a single person ever object to it politically.

    Of course many, like Chomsky, who believe in physically coerced socialism have used "libertarian socialist" to describe themselves in order to mislead others.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 15, 2010
  16. Apr 15, 2010 #15
    Is there any "physically coerced socialism" in the world currently?
     
  17. Apr 15, 2010 #16
    lol physically coerced?

    Yep, all those voters who keep turning out for Chavez are dragged at knife point to the polling booths to vote for him.

    Oh, it appears that Venezuela's elections are free and fair. People can actually want socialism, you know.
     
  18. Apr 15, 2010 #17
    Huh? Are you only pretending to misunderstand what I said? I was referring to the force used against those who don't want to participate, not against those that do. Was that not obvious?

    Nobody is even objecting to people practicing socialism that choose to. The objection is to the use of coercion against those who don't, whether they are a minority or not.

    The Venezuelan government, like many others, does indeed use physical coercion against those who don't want to participate in socialism. Does the fact that the force is used against a minority mean it's not coercion?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 15, 2010
  19. Apr 15, 2010 #18
    In virtually every country on the planet to varying extent. The word socialism is almost always used to refer to "physically coerced socialism" and only rarely used to refer to voluntary socialism.

    My post was a response to a post about voluntary socialism, such as the Amish in the U.S.
     
  20. Apr 15, 2010 #19

    Char. Limit

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The joke is that socialism is hardly ever physically coerced, as in dragging someone or hitting someone. Even the coercion you are thinking of, I believe, is mental.

    Physical Coercion is like hitting someone until they give up. Or something like that.
     
  21. Apr 15, 2010 #20
    Yes, the Amish use mental coercion, not physical coercion.

    But I don't see the joke. I rarely hear the word socialism used to refer to non-physically coerced socialism like the Amish. It's usually used to refer to socialism imposed by government by force.

    But the coercion is usually more like imprisonment than "hitting someone until they give up". :smile:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 15, 2010
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Libertarian Socialism
  1. Socializing (Replies: 14)

  2. Libertarian Party (Replies: 4)

Loading...