Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Libertarian Socialist Flag by BullMoose1912 Libertarian Socialist Flag by BullMoose1912
Just something I thought up.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconcomradetimvii:
ComradeTimVII Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2014
Very interesting and highly innovative, Comrade. Might I suggest a different color for the red border though, perhaps green to provide a contrast to the red center and to show dedication to environmental  protection as well as Industrial advance?

Forward the revolution!
Reply
:iconsatanicsocialist:
satanicsocialist Featured By Owner Jul 2, 2014
the only real libertarians are socialist/anarchists! viva la libertad and thank you!
Reply
:iconkingwilliam14:
kingwilliam14 Featured By Owner Jul 8, 2013
This flag looks very dictatorship-like...:O
Reply
:iconsatanicsocialist:
satanicsocialist Featured By Owner Jul 2, 2014
how?
Reply
:iconpeacekeeper-hq:
Peacekeeper-HQ Featured By Owner Apr 7, 2013
Quite the contradiction you have there.
Reply
:icondaftmarzo:
Daftmarzo Featured By Owner May 20, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Jesus Christ. I don't think you know what libertarianism or socialism is if you think that's a contradiction.
Reply
:iconpeacekeeper-hq:
Peacekeeper-HQ Featured By Owner May 20, 2013
Libertarianism is the political philosophy of small decentralized government and the promotion of liberty through voluntary exchanges and personal responsibility. Socialism is the philosophy of total government control of the means of production and the allocation of resources through central planning by force. How is that not a contradiction?
Reply
:iconsatanicsocialist:
satanicsocialist Featured By Owner Jul 2, 2014
libertarian is a socialist idalogy. it means socialist anarchist. also socialism is common ownership of the means of production not any of that red scare nonsense you were on about. individual sharing the means of production, that's socialism.
Reply
:iconmylittletripod:
MyLittleTripod Featured By Owner May 13, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist

Many anarchists, seeing the negative nature of the definition of "anarchism," have used other terms to emphasise the inherently positive and constructive aspect of their ideas. The most common terms used are "free socialism," "free communism," "libertarian socialism," and "libertarian communism." For anarchists, libertarian socialism, libertarian communism, and anarchism are virtually interchangeable. As Vanzetti put it:

 

"After all we are socialists as the social-democrats, the socialists, the communists, and the I.W.W. are all Socialists. The difference -- the fundamental one -- between us and all the other is that they are authoritarian while we are libertarian; they believe in a State or Government of their own; we believe in no State or Government." [Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti, p. 274]

But is this correct? Considering definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary, we find:

 

LIBERTARIAN: one who believes in freedom of action and thought; one who believes in free will.

SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.

 

Just taking those two first definitions and fusing them yields:

 

LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM: a social system which believes in freedom of action and thought and free will, in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.

(Although we must add that our usual comments on the lack of political sophistication of dictionaries still holds. We only use these definitions to show that "libertarian" does not imply "free market" capitalism nor "socialism" state ownership. Other dictionaries, obviously, will have different definitions -- particularly for socialism. Those wanting to debate dictionary definitions are free to pursue this unending and politically useless hobby but we will not).

However, due to the creation of the Libertarian Party in the USA, many people now consider the idea of "libertarian socialism" to be a contradiction in terms. Indeed, many "Libertarians" think anarchists are just attempting to associate the "anti-libertarian" ideas of "socialism" (as Libertarians conceive it) with Libertarian ideology in order to make those "socialist" ideas more "acceptable" -- in other words, trying to steal the "libertarian" label from its rightful possessors.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists have been using the term "libertarian" to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850's. According to anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the revolutionary anarchist Joseph Dejacque published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Socialin New York between 1858 and 1861 while the use of the term "libertarian communism" dates from November, 1880 when a French anarchist congress adopted it. [Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, p. 75 and p. 145] The use of the term "Libertarian" by anarchists became more popular from the 1890s onward after it was used in France in an attempt to get round anti-anarchist laws and to avoid the negative associations of the word "anarchy" in the popular mind (Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel published the paper Le Libertaire -- The Libertarian -- in France in 1895, for example). Since then, particularly outside America, it has always been associated with anarchist ideas and movements. Taking a more recent example, in the USA, anarchists organised "The Libertarian League" in July 1954, which had staunch anarcho-syndicalist principles and lasted until 1965. The US-based "Libertarian" Party, on the other hand has only existed since the early 1970's, well over 100 years after anarchists first used the term to describe their political ideas (and 90 years after the expression "libertarian communism" was first adopted). It is that party, not the anarchists, who have "stolen" the word. Later, in Section B, we will discuss why the idea of a "libertarian" capitalism (as desired by the Libertarian Party) is a contradiction in terms.

As we will also explain in Section I, only a libertarian-socialist system of ownership can maximise individual freedom. Needless to say, state ownership -- what is commonly called "socialism" -- is, for anarchists, not socialism at all. In fact, as we will elaborate in Section H, state "socialism" is just a form of capitalism, with no socialist content whatever. As Rudolf Rocker noted, for anarchists, socialism is "not a simple question of a full belly, but a question of culture that would have to enlist the sense of personality and the free initiative of the individual; without freedom it would lead only to a dismal state capitalism which would sacrifice all individual thought and feeling to a fictitious collective interest." [quoted by Colin Ward, "Introduction", Rudolf Rocker, The London Years, p. 1]

Given the anarchist pedigree of the word "libertarian," few anarchists are happy to see it stolen by an ideology which shares little with our ideas. In the United States, as Murray Bookchin noted, the "term 'libertarian' itself, to be sure, raises a problem, notably, the specious identification of an anti-authoritarian ideology with a straggling movement for 'pure capitalism' and 'free trade.' This movement never created the word: it appropriated it from the anarchist movement of the [nineteenth] century. And it should be recovered by those anti-authoritarians . . . who try to speak for dominated people as a whole, not for personal egotists who identify freedom with entrepreneurship and profit." Thus anarchists in America should "restore in practice a tradition that has been denatured by" the free-market right. [The Modern Crisis, pp. 154-5] And as we do that, we will continue to call our ideas libertarian socialism.

(An Anarchist FAQ)

Reply
:icondaftmarzo:
Daftmarzo Featured By Owner May 21, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Libertarianism, in its classical sense, meant anarchism. That's what the libertarian socialists referred to themselves as, they were anarchists. Now, in North America, and only in North America (the rest of the world still thinks of it as anarchism), it means minarchism, only little government control.

Socialism is not at all what you described. What you described was state capitalism, and that's what the Soviet Union had. Socialism is when the means of production are commonly, or collectively owned by the people. Once again, state ownership of the means of production is state capitalism.

I am an anarchist, and a socialist. I sometimes refer to myself as a libertarian as well.
Reply
:iconpeacekeeper-hq:
Peacekeeper-HQ Featured By Owner May 21, 2013
No one ever thought libertarianism in its classical sense, or any sense, meant anarchism, because anarchism is anarchism. It's its own political philosophy. The only people who actually think libertarianism means anarchy are liberals, because they are so wrapped in their worship for the state that they can't even fathom a small reduction in the size of government without it resulting in chaos in their eyes. In other words, they're ignorant. Likewise, "state capitalism" must be something you or someone else made up because that is a non term that does not exist even on college campuses, where economics is bastardized beyond comprehension. The Soviet Union had communism outright meaning that the government had complete authority over all things civil and economic. Socialism is literally the term for state control of the economy. Shit, it's even in the name of the Soviet Union for god's sake. United Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. It's impossible for the government to engage in capitalism because it doesn't have any of its own money. It can only take from others, meaning that this made up term of yours, state capitalism, is a contradiction unto itself. If you're an anarchist, then you're an anarchist and whatever you do with your capital, whether you use it to generate a profit or share with other people isn't socialism or libertarianism, it's just your business. It's simply how you choose to conduct yourself.
Reply
:icondaftmarzo:
Daftmarzo Featured By Owner May 22, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Yet another example of indoctrination. Thinking the USSR was socialist, communist, not knowing what either socialism or communism is, not knowing the history of the word libertarianism (it was first used by those who called themselves libertarian socialists, they believe in anarchy). State capitalism is when the means of production is owned by the state, this is what I mean when I say state capitalism.

Again, and I highly recommend that you do some reading on these definitions (these are the definitions that the original poster was using for his art work), Socialism is when the means of production is owned commonly or collectively by the people.

Communism is entirely different from what you described, in fact, communism is inherently anarchistic. Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society where the means of production are owned commonly or collectively by the people.

These are the definitions of communism and socialism. The Soviet Union hijacked these words to garner mass support from the population, to get into power. What the Soviet Union was not socialism or communism.
Reply
:iconpeacekeeper-hq:
Peacekeeper-HQ Featured By Owner May 23, 2013
The way you're using these terms sounds like something you'd find on some vague forum or something, because no school of economics uses these terms in this way. Neither the Austrian school or the Keynesian school recognize your use of these words. I don't know how I can make it any simpler for you to understand. I'll give it one more shot:

Communism = total government

anarchy = no government

liberty = limited government

Fascism = the merger of corporate and state power

Your opinion on what these words should mean doesn't matter. There's no in between with these words. If you have anarchy, but share your capital, it's still anarchy. You're just choosing what to do with your capital. The way you're using these words is convoluted and illogical. The way I use them is simple, easy to understand, and anyone can point to the definitions I laid out and can find where they stand and easily label the political systems of other societies. It's really senseless when you say it was a conspiracy that the USSR hijacked the word socialism, when they were literally the people who not only invented the concepts of socialism and communism, but the words themselves. Look, you seem very naive. You still have much to learn about the nature of government, economics, and human nature. Trying to explain the complexities of praxeology through pricing, the law of unintended consequences, and human incentive instincts is way too much to go over all at once. I mean, you haven't even thought of how improbable a socialist society would be without government.

Let's say that you tried to implement your stateless socialism. One day I decide, "You know what, I like the tractor the town's share croppers use to plow the fields. I think I'll steal it and sell it to the next town over." Better yet, what if I decide to convince the neighboring town to attack your town and steal all your things? What's to stop them? There's no government. You'd be helpless. Of course then another town would hear about what we did and they'd be like, "These guys have a bunch of really nice things now. We should take them for ourselves." Then those two towns go to war and then word spreads and the next thing you know there's chaos everywhere. There's a word for that. It's called anarchy. Your flaw is that you think that without any boundaries people would somehow come together and share everything, but the reality is people need incentive. Without incentive, without any assurance that their capital would be protected and that they could keep their capital for themselves so they could enrich their own lives, why the fuck would people do anything for you or anyone else? Because it's nice? If you actually believe that you are quite naive.
Reply
:icondaftmarzo:
Daftmarzo Featured By Owner May 23, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
You're ignoring centuries of work on what communism, anarchism, and socialism is. What I say is not my opinion.

I'm done trying to convince you. Read some Wikipedia articles at least, before you tell me what these definitions are.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner May 12, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I’m not sure if I already ran this argument by you, but just in case: Libertarianism advocates the protection of individual rights including life, liberty, and property. Socialism advocates the abolishment of property rights for the sake of holding everything in common. How is either philosophy compatible?
Reply
:iconsatanicsocialist:
satanicsocialist Featured By Owner Jul 2, 2014
the word libertarian specifically means socialist/anarchist. the only reason it has come to mean right wing to some is because right wingers have a rich history of re-defining terms.
Reply
:iconmickeyford:
mickeyford Featured By Owner Apr 6, 2013
You beat me to it.
Reply
:iconbullmoose1912:
BullMoose1912 Featured By Owner May 12, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Libertarian in the sense of social libertarianism, not economic. (Basically anarchist.) No classes or nation states, free association between people instead of strict governments. As opposed to state socialism with its nationalization of industry, state ownership of property, state ownership of industry and means of production and its central economic planning. (What most people unfortunately think of when they think of socialism. I disagree with it too.)

Land, means of production, firms, etc. not owned privately by a firm or publicly by the state but collectively. Firms organized by worker-owners, not by one boss, i.e., worker's self-management and decentralized planning by the worker-owners of the firms. This should explain it better than I could. [link]

Basically how people lived for most of human history, the mindset emphasizing cooperation over competition.

I think I sent you this article before, but it explains how a free-market economy could work in all of this. [link]
Reply
:iconwrathfan99:
WrathFan99 Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2013
All very , very true . Peace , man . Liberty shall be enjoyed by all the workers . Long live the Revolution !
Reply
:iconnonamec68:
NoNameC68 Featured By Owner Sep 16, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
I thought that was anarcho-communism.

Regardless, in a free market, people can run their business where one person or group of people own the company, there's nothing stopping them from doing so. The only way such can be stopped is if it's more efficient for corporations to divide the company so that everyone owns an equal share of it, which is possible I suppose.

Land, not owned by individuals? What's stopping people from owning land? Other people or agencies?

Also, I believe most of recorded human history relied on some form of market that we are currently using. I don't think humans really lived the way you described for very long. The only exceptions would be very primitive tribes, and even they would "own" some form of property (even if they shared land). The reason they could share land is because they were a tight knit community in which people who didn't conform were exiled from the group. Private property allows people who share different views to live amongst one another.

Libertarians believe in private property. What you suggested is anarcho-communism.
Reply
:iconpebblesinthesky:
Pebblesinthesky Featured By Owner Jan 3, 2013
The funny thing is that the first person ever to use the word Libertarian was an anarcho-commist called Joseph Déjacque, in 1857. The word libertarian was always used by anarchist way before propertarian apporpriated it for themselves. And if one or two people owned the company than every one else who work for it doing so by wage slavery. Anarchists argued that it is the goverment and current system of capitalism, especially the current property laws that is making sure that we can't create a true worker's self-management throught the use of worker councils and cooperatives.
Reply
:iconarkangel1992:
Arkangel1992 Featured By Owner May 8, 2012
How did you make this?
Reply
:iconbullmoose1912:
BullMoose1912 Featured By Owner May 8, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Photoshop Elements 6. The star and the gear come from the Wikimedia Commons (i.e., public domain and free to use) and I drew rectangles for the horizontal bands.

The process became a whole lot easier, and I got much better results after I turned on the grid function, which allowed me to get a much higher level of precision than I would without the grid function.
Reply
:iconarkangel1992:
Arkangel1992 Featured By Owner May 10, 2012
Looks like im getting Photoshop elements 6 then...been using Miscosoft paint for mine so far
Reply
:iconbullmoose1912:
BullMoose1912 Featured By Owner May 10, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Yeah, MS Paint is really basic, doesn't let you do much. It's worth the 60-100 dollars. (I got mine with a pen tablet, though I haven't used the tablet in a long time.)
Reply
:iconarkangel1992:
Arkangel1992 Featured By Owner May 11, 2012
i'm in Britain, it's 45.99 or £15.99 on amazon
Reply
:iconyinai-185:
Yinai-185 Featured By Owner May 8, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
ah wow this is Awesome :D Brilliant work.
Reply
:iconz-t-l-fire:
z-t-l-fire Featured By Owner May 8, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
Resembles the Israeli flag to be honest.
Reply
:iconbullmoose1912:
BullMoose1912 Featured By Owner May 8, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I guess kind of. And maybe a bit like "Best Korea" flag and the EZLN flag.

Though Israel was originally founded on socialist principles before the revisionists took over after the Six Day War. [link]
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner May 8, 2012
Ha ha I was thinking North Korea...!
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×
Download PNG 1400 × 900




Details

Submitted on
May 7, 2012
Image Size
34.7 KB
Resolution
1400×900
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
3,643 (3 today)
Favourites
44 (who?)
Comments
32
Downloads
432

License

Creative Commons License
Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 License.
×