socialismo libertario

egosumrexgloriae  asked:

As far as i know you are confusing libertarianism with liberalism. Most of the libertarians in south América fight against the state being part of some anarchist movement or not. There aint much diferent except some ways to live, okupa, freegan, more like a primitivism way of lude too but for the way you have explained it sounds more like liberal than anything else in this region

You are probably refering to Socialismo libertario which is different from libertarismo.

Libertarianism is, at its simplest, the antonym of authoritarianism. The term has been around since the beginning of the 20th century or earlier and was primarily used for self-identification with anarcho-syndicalism and labor movements. In the USA, the term was adopted by the Foundation for Economic Education think tank in the 1950’s to describe a political and social philosophy that advocates laissez-faire capitalism as a panacea for virtually everything. Non-libertarians view this as synonymous with oligarchic plutocracy after the fashion of the American Gilded Age, while the reality-based community tends to realize that one cannot just yank economic theories out of the air and magically expect them to work.

Prominent currents


Neo-classical liberalism: Traditional classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government.

Anarcho-capitalism: Murray Rothbard’s Anarcho-capitalism (also referred to as free-market anarchism, market anarchism, and private-property anarchism) is a political philosophy which advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by privately funded competitors rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. Therefore, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by privately run law rather than through politics.

Objectivism: Objectivism is a philosophy created by Russian-American novelist Ayn Rand, who condemned libertarianism as being a greater threat to freedom and capitalism than both modern liberalism and conservatism, due to what she saw as its lack of philosophic and moral foundation. Objectivism’s central tenets are that reality exists independent of consciousness; that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception; that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic; that the proper moral purpose of one’s life is the pursuit of one’s own happiness (or rational self-interest); that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism. Rand believed that political advocacy could not succeed without addressing what she saw as its methodological prerequisites. Rand rejected any affiliation with the libertarian movement and many other Objectivists have done so as well.


Libertarian socialism: (sometimes called social anarchism, left-libertarianism and socialist libertarianism) is a group of political philosophies within the socialist movement that reject the view of socialism as state ownership or command of the means of production within a more general criticism of the state form itself as well as of wage labour relationships within the workplace. Instead it emphasizes workers’ self-management of the workplace and decentralized structures of political government asserting that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite. Libertarian socialists generally place their hopes in decentralized means of direct democracy and federal or confederal associations such as libertarian municipalism, citizens’ assemblies, trade unions, and workers’ councils. All of this is generally done within a general call for libertarian and voluntary human relationships through the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of life.

Geolibertarianism: is a political movement and ideology that synthesizes libertarianism and geoist theory, traditionally known as Georgism. 
Geolibertarians are advocates of geoism, which is the position that all natural resources, most importantly land, are common assets to which all individuals have an equal right to access; therefore, individuals must pay rent to the community if they claim land as their private property.
They simultaneously agree with the libertarian position that each individual has an exclusive right to the fruits of his or her labor as their private property, as opposed to this product being owned collectively by society or the community, and that “one’s labor, wages, and the products of labor” should not be taxed. As with traditional libertarians, they advocate “full civil liberties, with no crimes unless there are victims who have been invaded.

The Steiner–Vallentyne school: Contemporary left-libertarian scholars such as Hillel Steiner, Peter Vallentyne, Philippe Van Parijs, Michael Otsuka, and David Ellerman root an economic egalitarianism in the classical liberal concepts of self-ownership and land appropriation, combined with geoist or physiocratic views regarding the ownership of land and natural resources (e.g. those of John Locke and Henry George). They hold that it is illegitimate for anyone to claim private ownership of natural resources to the detriment of others.
Instead, unappropriated natural resources are either unowned or owned in common, and private appropriation is only legitimate if everyone can appropriate an equal amount or if private appropriation is taxed to compensate those who are excluded from natural resources.

source 1 and source 2

- la poesía no puede ser anarquista -

Si la poesía
- acaso -
fuese el lugar de la metáfora

entonces la anarquía
debiese ser
aquel lugar
en donde pudiese rebotar la realidad
sin censura
ni orlas suavizantes

Que golpeara
los oídos
y ojos

no que se rinda
en excusa universalista
ante quien solo busca
refugio de la realidad
en frases bien hechas

bien juntadas

que le dijesen
en el fondo
que todo puede estar bien
que todo puede ser mejor


porque la anarquía
si acaso es poesía
no es poemario de pequeñas burguesias

y va dirigida
en acción directa
a quienes capaz
siquieran leen
- o tienen tiempo de hacerlo -
entre minutos de su enajenada labor

pero que sin embargo saben
mejor que nadie
eso que reproduce el modelo
del cual pueden quejarse
escribiendo mentalmente
aquello que hoy no podrán decir

(y que se aburren de leer)

la anarquía concuerda
(y no les hace descubrir)

porque la libertad
no son frases

porque la transformación
no es una guía

y el sacrificio
no son cánticos heroicos
al altar de los caídos
de las olvidadas

por eso la anarquía
no puede ser poesía

porque no es metáfora
de un mundo injusto

es realidad
- oculta -
y difícil

pegándole como un escupo
a quien quiera hacerla evidente

para las bellas letras quejosas
- e incluso denunciantes -
de la literatura evidente

Es que evidentemente
la anarquía
no puede ser poesía

porque la vida es vida
y sino
viviríamos mintiéndonos
entre utopías

“Tutti i continenti si rovesceranno
sulla vecchia Europa.
Sono centinaia di milioni.
Hanno fame e non temono la morte.
Noi, non sappiamo più morire né uccidere.
Bisognerebbe predicare, ma l'Europa non crede in niente”

Chi legge una frase del genere pensa subito a un autore reazionario e bigotto della vecchia Europa angosciato per il tramonto dell'occidente e spaventato per l'invasione dei migranti.
E invece sono parole di un immigrato algerino e di uno scrittore che militò nel Partito Comunista, predicò la rivolta e fu considerato un simbolo dell'emancipazione africana e del socialismo libertario.

Sto parlando di Albert Camus.

Le sue parole ancora non conoscevano i massicci flussi migratori dei nostri anni, perché provengono dagli anni ‘50.

Marcello Veneziani