Are the terms libertarian socialist/anarcho-communist oxy-morons?

Question

How can one be libertarian/anarchist and socialist/communist at the same time. A sole facet of libertarianism is a free-market economy.

Answer 1

First of all, people really need to abandon the idea that everything is dualistic. This over simplification screams of mass borderline personality disorder.

Libertarianism is not inherently capitalist. Libertarianism is a political philosophy, derived from classical liberalism, maintaining that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish, provided they allow others the same liberty.

Socialism is not inherently Marxist. Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which the means of production and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.

Marxism is not inherently dictatorial. The totalitarian nature of the states that call themselves Marxist is a result of Leninist ideas such as the vanguard party (which is the belief that the proletariat needs to be led by a party of professional revolutionaries) and democratic centralism.

Misconceptions arise out of the belief that there is only one political axis in an all-encompassing political spectrum and that EVERYTHING is either one or the other, black or white. In reality, the single axis political spectrum is so over-simplified that it is more or less incorrect.

The Eysenck two-axis approach (which is used for the political compass) is very much more accurate and intelligent. The Economic (Left-Right) axis measures one's opinion of how the economy should be run: "The Left" is defined as the view that the economy should be run by a cooperative collective agency (which can mean the state, but can also mean a network of communes), while "the Right" is defined as the view that the economy should be left to the devices of competing individuals and organizations. The other axis (Authoritarian-Libertarian) measures one's political opinions in a "Social" sense, regarding a view of the appropriate amount of "personal freedom": "Libertarianism" is defined as the belief that personal freedom should be maximized, while "Authoritarianism" is defined as the belief that authority and tradition should be obeyed.

A libertarian socialist is thus a person who believes that there should be a socialist economic structure with a minimalist political structure. If you're not ignorant, they're not incompatible.

Answer 2

Your question relies on later re-definitions of the words that occurred long after the terms "libertarian socialist" and "anarcho-communist" came into use. With the traditional meanings, the ones used when the terms were coined, the terms are not oxymorons. With the later re-definitions, they look like oxymorons, but those who still use these terms also still use the traditional meanings of the words.

It would take a great deal of space to explain this fully, as it also involves the re-definition of other terms (capitalism, monopoly, etc.) as well as all four of the words in these two compound terms. I'll try to do so briefly. Please note that I here describe the traditional meanings of the following terms, assuming knowledge of the later re-definitions.

Capitalism refers to the ownership and control of the means of production (capital) by an elite class (known as capitalists). This elite class uses its monopolization of the means of production to (indirectly) force the works to work for them, and thus to extract a portion of the product that the workers produce.

Socialism refers to the ownership and control of the means of production by the workers themselves, whether as individuals, cooperatives, collectives, communes, or the state. (Note that some socialists, such as mutualists like Proudhon and anarcho-individualists like Warren, Spooner, and Tucker, advocate an anti-capitalist free-market system.)

Communism refers to a form of socialism in which people have free access to the means of production and free access to their products.

Anarchism refers to the rejection of illegitimate authority and hierarchy, specifically to the state and capitalism; anarchists do not reject all organization, they reject forced, hierarchical organization in favor of voluntary, non-hierarchical self-organization.

Libertarian is a traditional synonym for anarchist in the traditional sense.

With these traditional meanings, the compound terms are clearly not oxymorons. But all of these words have, as I stated before, suffered later re-definition, and using the later re-definitions instead of the original meanings does create oxymorons of them.

"An Anarchist FAQ" gives a fairly comprehensive description of traditionalist anarchist views and their difference from modern capitalist libertarianism:
http://www.anarchistfaq.org/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo/

Answer 3

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."
- L. Neil Smith

Socialists do not believe in the legitimacy of private property. They believe everything should be economically shared. Consider the initiation of force required to do this and you have your answer. You will hear people who call themselves libertarian socialists talk about their Utopia, but they will never tell you how they plan to pull it off without force.

Watch this;
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

Read this;
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

Anarchy is sometimes subjectively defined, but generally refers to a lack of government or state of lawlessness. Communism is an economic philosophy where everything is the property of the government.

Economic freedom is they key to all liberty and a cornerstone of libertarianism. Without the ability to freely decide the disposition of that which you own, your life, your wealth, your actions, your property how much liberty can one really have?

The key to liberty lies not in how much freedom you are given by others but by how much freedom you give to others.

Peace,
Bryan

Answer 4

Your questions makes no sense. A libertarian is not necessarily an anarchist and a socialist is not necessarily a communist. All of those terms mean different things. I suggest you look them up before posing any more questions.

Answer 5

Throw a bunch of words in a blender that the neo-cons think sound neat and you've come up with a new insult that will make them happy.

The islamo-Facist is my favorite bit of nonsense since the two root ideals are complete opposites.

Answer 6

Is an oxymoron. I'm a Libertarian and disagree with communism and anarchism. It completely violates our libertarian philosophy and beliefs.

Answer 7

Yes. Anyone arguing otherwise is screaming at the wind.

Answer 8

Welcome to the insane world of Yahoo politics, where non-sense is all the rage!

Answer 9

Yes, they are, and no you can't.