There is some normative conflation there. You're aware that words with identical meanings are almost perfectly rare in English, right? I just want to make sure that you weren't misinformed by dishonest people.

@DZhukovin Can you clarify what you mean by 'normative conflation', in this context?

@DZhukovin Rothnard writes about stealing the moniker “libertarian” from the anarchists (i.e. socialists).

@Prescott Anarchists are not socialists. Today's anarchists just want to see the world burn.
Anarchy as defined in the age of reason was "Without leaders, The French philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon when studying the Iroquois Nations council he found elected leaders whose authority and followers vanished if they made a bad decision.
Remember the french had a thousand years of heretical and hierarchical social order that one never questioned. A french peasant would never refuse a lord's call to arms, the thought was not even possible. This anarchy is much closer to socialism than today where most seem to take anarchy to mean order.

@pye-rate
Your comment is rather self-contradicting as written. You may want to clarify a bit more.

@Prescott

What does any of that have to do with what I said? You're not paying attention.

@DZhukovin I was trying to present some historical perspective on why anarchy and socialism are not the same or related by defending the original definition of anarchy, with out leaders.

@pye-rate you may want to read up on anarchism because you don’t seem to have the slightest idea about it. Check out The Conquest Of Bread, or watch some Noam Chomsky videos on YouTube to get a better understanding. Anarchism is a strain of tendencies that falls under the socialist umbrella. It’s more than just “no leaders.” It’s also about how to organize society once unjust and arbitrary hierarchies are abolished. Anarchism is also explicitly anti capitalist. This idea that anarchy is chaos, disorder, and no rules betrays your lack of understanding of the subject matter.

@Prescott My lack of understanding the subject matter may be true but is based on the behavior of the persons I have met who claim they are anarchists but just want to watch the world burn.

@pye-rate you should meet some real anarchists, and not people who’s knowledge of anarchism is limited to buying edgy clothes at Hot Topic.

A lot of major cities have anarchist book collectives where you can get free anarchist literature and talk to real anarchists. Food Not Bombs is a big anarchist collective and they’re all about feeding he hungry and shit.

@Prescott Unlike the self styled the responses I get from the world burners this is being a respectful and informative dialogue. I agree with most of the anarchists ideals you have put forth. As I may have misstated before the problem I see with the existing system is the wealth not enough is shared by those who do the work to earn it. That is something I believe can be fixed legislatively, though not by most of those now in office.

@pye-rate anarchists don't want to watch the world burn. Just the parts of it that oppress us. Anarchism is merely socialism taken to it's libertarian extreme. Think of an x/y axis. X being economic thought ie: capitalism vs. socialism and the y axis being authoritarian vs. libertarian (defined as liberty- not as an economic system). By this way of looking at the situation, anarchism is in the corner of the extreme of socialist economics and opposition to authority. There are online quizzes where you can "test" your political orientation.

That awkward moment when you claim Marxism places the state above people, but Marxism is about smashing the state and creating a stateless society.

@wordywalt @prescott
Marx did advocate for a stateless, classless society, but his concept of a 'vanguard' has often been used to justify 'temporary' authoritarianism. It's a messy subject.

@DonThiebaut You need to read Milovan Djilas's book THE NEW CLASS. Djilas was he communist vice president of Yugoslavia. But, in that role, he came to see Marxism for what it really is. It is a false total system ideology which purports to include and explain everything (just like most religions claim).

Mars calls for a "temporary" dictatorship of the proletariat by an elite of ideological purists. As Djilas pointed out, the problem is that the "temporary" dictatorship becomes a permanent elite in total control and which will never voluntarily relinquish its power. It becomes a "new class." Djilas spent 20 years in prison for writing this book.

@wordywalt oh, I know what you mean. That's why I put 'temporary' in quotes. Because it never ends up temporary. Failing to predict that was a failing of Marx, and failing to learn from that is a failing of modern hard-line marxists. Of course, that doesn't mean everything about Marx or Marxism was bad. Marx was right about the problems of capital accumulation, and had some good insights on worker alienation, for instance.

Murray Rothbard--
‘One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, “our side,” had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . “Libertari­ans” . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over. . .’ [The Betrayal of the American Right, p. 83]

@KBJ41 Perfect!?

I identify myself as a progressive, and I disagree with you. Libertarianism has always been focused on self, taking the stance that I have my rights as an individual, and no one may intrude on them. It is "rugged individualism" and with little regard for others.

@KBJ41 @wordywalt I agree with the sentiments against right-libertarianism. It really is just greed, with an overreliance on market trends that can't account for everything.

However, @KBJ41, your definition of socialism at the bottom is incorrect, or at least overly casual for such an extensive discussion. The technical definition of socialism is that the means of production be controlled by the workers, and inherently excludes capitalist enterprise. Socialism can mean government control, but only when the government is controlled by the people.

Also, Anarchy, State, and Utopia was published 1974, the Rothbard quote I posted above was from a book published in 2007, but the first use of the word Libertarian to describe a political movement was in Le Libertaire: Journal du Mouvement Social, by Joseph Déjacque, an anarcho-socialist, and was published in 1864, over 100 years before Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

@KBJ41 I don't know much about Dejacque myself, I simply googled the first use of 'libertarian' to establish that it existed as a left-wing ideology long before Nozick.
Libertarian socialism isn't necessarily silent on government response, as the goal isn't inherently anti-government (though of course some of the more extreme branches of anarchist thought denounce any form of governent altogether). I like to think of it this way: right-libertarians want government to stay out of their way while they do bad things ('What do you mean, I can't dump toxic waste!' ) while giving only lip service to good things, while left-libertarians want the government to stay out of their way on good things ('What do you mean, I can't feed the homeless!' ), while largely (again, not universally) in favor of government doing good things. I've never heard a socialist complain about single-payer healthcare, for instance.
Also, that's not a conflation, that's the definition. Marxist communism is differentiated by taking it one step farther and having total community control of the means of production in a totally classless, sharing society, without a government (as it has 'withered away' from no longer being needed, so again, not necessarily anti-government).

I've always thought that an obsession with weakness was sheepish. Don't fault a guy for attempting to grow.

@DonThiebaut You can always tell a herd member. And being your self is contrary to not growing. Doesn't matter anyway, I'll just be myself regardless.

@Nardi
Hates labels
Calls people 'herd members'

@DonThiebaut hitting a nerve?

@Nardi Hey, man, I'm not the one who felt the need to call someone 'weak' and a 'herd member' without provocation. ?

@DonThiebaut Ah forget it arguing with you is useless. I never meant anything bad. Being sheep'ish is weak in the way of not thinking for yourself but being told what to think, being yourself is good as in deciding for yourself who you are. I'm sure this has not gone "woosh" over the head of others. If you wanna carry on bring it to a message or give up.

Not any more. See KBK41 above.

@Sticks48 like many other things it was stolen by hyper-capitalists.

@Sticks48 Kind of. There are still libertarian socialists, and there is pushback against the full appropriation of the term by the right-wing. But mostly, yeah. If you saw libertarian without any context, in America at least, it means right-wing.

The bottom paragraph pretty succinctly describes what a Libertarian socialist might believe. Libertarian capitalists appropriated the term libertarian in the mid-twentieth century, but before that, libertarian and libertarian socialist were essentially synonymous.

@DonThiebaut Yeah, so many have so little understanding of the libertarian philosophy, even most who are perceived as being libertarian. Hint: Rand Paul and Paul Ryan are not libertarians.

@DaveSchumacher
I mean, I guess that depends on if there has been enough time and usage for the word to have successfully been redefined, but yeah, they certainly aren't living up to the original

@DonThiebaut Too bad they will never read Mises or Hayek.

@DaveSchumacher I thought mises and hayek both in favor of privatization? I've seen a quote accredited to mises where he supposedly accused a group of fellow economists as being 'a bunch of socialists' as a derogatory term.

Your description of libertarian is so wrong.

@Ellatynemouth @jwd45244
There is an issue with the privileged sorts not recognizing their unconscious hypocracy. Most have their heart in the right place, at least.