Any examples of successful libertarian socialist societies?
That have lasted for a decent period of time.
Socialism needs a strong goverment. Libertarian socialists are just morons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPl_Y3Qdb7Y
the point isn't really to create "societies" though but to find out the best ways possible to advance human freedom and put them into practice
anarchists are criticised for not being realistic, but this is a meme argument that relies on the is/ought fallacy and the real pragmatism comes into the implementation of what's right
if something's right, it being harder to ahieve should make us more determined
>>1233123
>libertarian
>socialist
Pick one
>>1233135
I remember seeing some website explaining how it wasn't an oxymoron, but the whole paragraph was silly sophistry.
>>1233123
>Libertarian Socialism
Lol, what?
>>1233138
>But Chomsky says it works so it must be true!
Libertarian in Libertarian Socialism means anti-authoritarian. I may be wrong but I think Libertarian Socialism is more or less equivalent to anarcho-socialism and anarcho-syndicalism.
>>1233123
>China
>libertarian
>socialist
Surely you jest!
>>1233154
Once the USSR fell the socialists didn't bother saying that they were wrong, they then started the "not real socialism" meme and started advocating libertarian socialism.
I still haven't deciphered what they mean or how it works.
>>1233160
No, I put that up to show how well China has done since they stopped being communist.
>>1233158
How do those work then?
>>1233137
Minarchist works for that.
See AS&U
>>1233177
All subjugation is wrong anon
>To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.
>successful
>socialism
No.
>>1233123
>are there any examples of societies without a class of people who own all the capital via control of wealth in the form of money and purchase of labour that have lasted a long time
lol good one. there are zero industrialised countries that have managed to abolish money and its ability to concentrate value for a group of people. They might have managed it in revolutionary catalonia, but the ruskies fucked over the anarchists, so that doesn't meet your criteria of "lasting a decent period of time"
Probably most of human existence up to the agricultural revolution perhaps.
>>1233197
>Implying a state of no subjugation is possible.
>>1233210
IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT
>>1233209
Do you really think we can go back to a society of hunter gatherers?
>>1233211
Are you arguing that is isn't possible but it ought to be?
What I said had no ought, only is.
>>1233215
It*
>>1233215
I'm arguing that even if it is impossible we should still try.
DO THE IMPOSSIBLE
SEE THE INVISIBLE
ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWER
>>1233212
no, no I don't. I'm placing my hopes on machines making human labour irrelevant. When capitalism no longer needs labour, the system won't be socially acceptable, leading to either total collapse as people forcibly try to gain access to goods and services or a horribly totalitarian government that has enslaved the population to whatever it wants in return for food (a kind of neo-serfdom), or a roboutopia socialist paradise where machines provide everything for everyone.
probably not going to be the nice future though
>>1233217
I'd rather be coerced by an institution that is at least nominally acting in the interests of the people, than one that is acting only in the interests of corporate profits and market domination.
>>1233154
Libertarian socialism is just libertarianism.
Libertarianism did not originally think what Americans think it means.
>>1233173
Maximum democracy
>>1233233
I did say ALL subjugation if you'd remember
>>1233233
>Acting only in the interests of corporate profits
Seriously, they make profits through supplying people's demands. That's something people don't understand about capitalism.
For every bad company there are 10 good ones.
>>1233239
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.
>>1233236
>Tyranny of the majority
>>1233242
Hell yeah it is.
>>1233241
False
>>1233239
>through supplying people's demands
>implying people make totally 100% rational purchasing decisions 100% of the time that can't be in any way influenced by advertising, ignorance, research suppression or social pressures
>>1233245
Prove me wrong.
>>1233163
>China is no longer communist.
2/3rds of the economy is government controlled.
>>1233255
Yeah, and that means it isn't communist.
>>1233257
It wasn't communist to begin with, it was aiming towards communism. Xioping just decided to make there be means of production to seize.
>>1233250
You have the burden of proof for your statement without any backing evidence. Since I was responding to you I don't have to prove it until you give some evidence.
>>1233264
Actually you made the original post so you made the statement without any backing evidence.
And in my experience when people pull "muh burden of proof", it simply means they can't prove it.
>>1233255
40%
It's 2016!
>>1233249
>Implying you know what people need more than they do
>>1233267
We are arguing over your comment of "there is no ethical consumption in capitalism".
When people dont see the need for proof,it simply means they can't prove it. Prove that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism please.
>>1233249
What does anything have to do with rationality? Regardless of how rational or not a mans decision is, it is his demand that creates these companies.
If anything, the more rational the better products you will have under capitalism.
>>1233284
Which itself was a comment to your initial claim.
>For every bad company there are 10 good ones.
For which is still no proof, but a lot of
>no u
>>1233279
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that people can buy stuff that is ultimately harmful or unnecessary - whether that's to the environment, to their health, to worker conditions, etc - due to deliberately being left in the dark about how that product came about. I actually believe people DO make the best decisions - so long as they know what it is they're buying. I get the feeling a lot more people would avoid factory-farmed meat if they knew the threat that massive overuse of antibiotics posed to our collective health, for example.
>>1233295
>What are pigovian taxes to fix markets where externalities exist
Capitalism doesn't mean pure laissez faire.
Governments are there to step in/regulate when markets fail.
>>1233294
I bullshitted that claim, but that doesn't mean your "no ethical consumption" claim was correct, which is what I was asking for proof of. At least I own up when I bullshit.
>>1233307
k
http://www.responsable.net/sites/default/files/myth_ethical_consumer.pdf
>>1233293
>If anything, the more rational the better products you will have under capitalism.
That's what I'm arguing. I'm saying that people often DON'T make rational decisions (i.e. decisions made in the best interest of both the consumer and the society) because people often aren't aware of all the facts, or because they might not have any other option.
A lot of disadvantaged people only have the ability to purchase things from Walmart, for example. And Walmart uses this fact to criminally underpay its employees, because it understands that the demand for their hyper-cheap products will always outweigh the social pressure to increase their wages, since a lot of people just can't reasonably expect to be able to buy things if their prices go up.
>>1233318
Fable of the Bees.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fable_of_the_Bees
>>1233249
>implying people make totally 100% rational purchasing decisions 100% of the time that can't be in any way influenced by advertising, ignorance, research suppression or social pressures
That also aplies to democracy and liberty as well. The difference is that the consumer just hurts himself if misguided,whilebin the other cases he can hurt other peopl
>>1233386
Another Burkeposter!
>>1233325
The thing is, in a free liberal capitalistic society those people have all the chances in the world to become aware of any bad facts, the options are always there in a capitalistic society.
However, under socialism these people would be shot for asking questions about the facts and the only other option is to not buy whatever they wanted to buy.
>walmart
>criminally underpay its employees
If you're not happy with what you are paid at walmart, go look for another job that pays you more. It's as simple as that.
>>1233386
>The difference is that the consumer just hurts himself if misguided
No, he might also be supporting organizations whose goals run opposite to greater society's.
>>1233482
>he might also be supporting organizations whose goals run opposite to greater society's.
How do you determine this? Please dont give me a meme answer.
>>1233161
>I have no idea what this is
>But I'm still going to talk shit and make presumptions about it haha!
>>1233438
>The thing is, in a free liberal capitalistic society those people have all the chances in the world to become aware of any bad facts, the options are always there in a capitalistic society.
That's exactly what he's arguing against though. Even if they were aware of these facts they may have no possible alternatives because they can only afford to shop there.
>However, under socialism these people would be shot for asking questions about the facts and the only other option is to not buy whatever they wanted to buy.
You clearly have no idea what Socialism is. Not every socialist society is an authoritarian Stalinist hell on earth. It is entirely possible in socialist societies for example Libertarian socialist ones that there can be numerous industries that produce one specific good using totally different means.
>>walmart
>>criminally underpay its employees
>If you're not happy with what you are paid at walmart, go look for another job that pays you more. It's as simple as that.
As was said before that's exactly what he's trying to educate you on. I can assure you that if you go to Wal-Mart and ask them if they enjoy working there they will all say no. They work there because they can't get a job anywhere else.
>>1233564
>You clearly have no idea what Socialism is. Not every socialist society is an authoritarian Stalinist hell on earth. It is entirely possible in socialist societies for example Libertarian socialist ones that there can be numerous industries that produce one specific good using totally different means.
Socialism without a strong goverment and great deal of coertion would never work. Libertarian socialism is a meme ideology.
>>1233135
t. Stalin
>>1233595
I see no arguments here.
Just a smug laughing man gif and a half ass rebuttal that's practically meaningless.
>>1233605
How are you going to maintain the means of production totally subsudized without a great deal of goverment intervention and coersion? Or do you believe that people wouldnt try to break the socialist sustem,if the goverment didnt heavily regulated?
>>1233123
All ideologies are the same in practice
>>1233564
>What is state paid education for the poor?
>>1233607
>How are you going to maintain the means of production totally subsudized without a great deal of goverment intervention and coersion?
Why must the government subsidise the country's industries? If they subsidize it then they practically own it meaning that if would no longer be socialism but state capitalism.
>Or do you believe that people wouldnt try to break the socialist sustem,if the goverment didnt heavily regulated?
If they wished to break a Libertarian socialist system then they would have to challenge every other member of society who were in favour of it too.
>>1233503
Please tell me about it then, oh enlightened one.
>>1233626
So if every kid wanted to achieve a decent, middle class standard of living then they could all just study at their fine public school, get good enough grades to then specialize to get into a middle class career that's in demand and live their life comfortably ever after?
But of course, its so obvious! But then why do poor people even exist!?
>>1233123
>libertarian socialist
>posts China
lol.
China has state capitalism since the 80s.
>>1233639
Here ya go.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Libertarian+Socialism+
>>1233655
>Poor people can't learn anything that will increase their pay.
>There are no job vacancies that people could take if they retrained
Lots of people didn't bother in school when they were young. Giving them a second chance can make them richer is many cases.
>>1233655
Pls. Some people are doom to poverty like it or not. Poverty is the natural state of mankind. Unproductive people are doomed to it. Unless you just expend trillions of dolars on welfare,which would just destroy the economy in the long run
>>1233679
Mind pinpointing where in my post I stated or even implied either of those things?
>>1233684
>natural state of mankind
>natural
>state
>of mankind.
And by the way, nowhere did Marx or Engels say that unproductive yet capable individuals deserve to be on welfare. Welfare is a product of Capitalist society, because even the unproductive can contribute to the system by being given money to purchase products and stimulate Capitalism.
>>1233729
>So if every kid wanted to achieve a decent, middle class standard of living then they could all just study at their fine public school, get good enough grades to then specialize to get into a middle class career that's in demand and live their life comfortably ever after?
But of course, its so obvious! But then why do poor people even exist!?
>Public school
>I'm speaking about state funded education
>>1233729
Yes. Humans were always poor,until very recently.
> And by the way, nowhere did Marx or Engels say that unproductive yet capable individuals deserve to be on welfare.
Never said the opposite. But the only way to have 0% poverty is through welfare. You can achieve good rates of poverty without this,but there would always be poverty due shity decissions,diseases or the like
>>1233564
And it is somehow the capitalist systems fault that some people can't get a better job than working at wal mart? Give me a break.
>>1233636
>How are you going to maintain the means of production totally subsudized without a great deal of goverment intervention and coersion?
>Why must the government subsidise the country's industries? If they subsidize it then they practically own it meaning that if would no longer be socialism but state capitalism.
I missed a word. Publicly owned and subsudize. Most public companies would have to be subsidized mate. Most companies run on debt/savings in the first 3 years. If the goverment doesnt subsidize the industries,the countries economy would be reduced to pretty rudimentary stuff,and would mean going backwards economically.
>>Or do you believe that people wouldnt try to break the socialist sustem,if the goverment didnt heavily regulated?
>If they wished to break a Libertarian socialist system then they would have to challenge every other member of society who were in favour of it too.
So basically using goverment force,or you mean militias? Either way it has little of libertarian,as it just opposes free asociation,and libertarianism is mostly about that. Seeing that there would be no subsidies and the local industry would collapse,dont worry,that noone would oppose an alternative.
Being a socialist is like being logical positivist, it's a thoroughly debunked political ideology that failed all over the world.
All we have left is democratic socialist reforms that are totally different anyway.
>>1234120
You mean social democrat, theres a difference.
>>1233871
No, it's the capitalist system's fault that working at Walmart is a shitty job.
>>1234252
Why? It is a job that anyone could do. Expecting it to be a good job is dumb,and only very dumb people should work there
>>1234264
Nothing wrong with being dumb.
I'm not saying you should expect it to be a good job (it isn't by virtue of capitalism), I'm saying it could be a much better job were the means of production controlled democratically.
>>1234277
>I'm not saying you should expect it to be a good job (it isn't by virtue of capitalism), I'm saying it could be a much better job were the means of production controlled democratically.
Kek. This theory has so many plotholes that is not even funny. "Democratly owned" companies would be a fucking disaster as Shanika,may have no clue about market tendencies,and vote to buy dumb crap. And this is not counting the way that wages are voted,which would probably kill the balance that the old owners built,and create inefficiencies,and specially internal conflicts.And even then,people work there due safety,working for a wage is conformism. Those people could probaly get some loans to open their own little bussiness,but is way riskier and requires way more work and planning ability. You can open cooperatives in capitalist countries,most people just dont have the will nor the risk acceptance to do it.
>>1234308
We already have democratically owned companies, they're called co-ops and largely work fine.
In the case of total global communism isn't also worth noting that companies as large as walmart would probably disintegrate into more regional confederations of stores.
>And even then,people work there due safety,working for a wage is conformism. Those people could probaly get some loans to open their own little bussiness,but is way riskier and requires way more work and planning ability. You can open cooperatives in capitalist countries,most people just dont have the will nor the risk acceptance to do it.
No one wants to work at Walmart. The people who work there do so because they can't get a job anywhere else, and likely for similar reasons wouldn't be approved for a loan to open a small business.
Additionally this is no risk at all in this instance, as the punishment for failure is having to work for a living which they already do. The reason they all don't open small business is not for a lack of risk-taking as they have nothing to lose, the reason is opening a business requires a certain level of initial economic advantage to enter into that minimum-wage labourers generally would not have available.
>>1233242
>Tyranny of the majority
And thus we see the need for a non-democratic, yet still capitalist society. As naught but a humble computer scientist, I ask /b/ how we can escape such tyranny, yet remain free.
>Dedicated individualist checking in.
>>1234409
>Individualist
>Supports capitalism.
S P O O K E D
>>1233318
>>http://www.responsable.net/sites/default/files/myth_ethical_consumer.pdf
>www.responsable.net
>responsable
Call me crazy, but I'd rather not take advice from someone who can't even spell "responsible"
>>1234409
We need some democracy, but certain unalienable rights to be guaranteed by the state, to prevent the worst excesses of democracy. Not rights given by God or natural rights, but some agreed by society as part of the social contract.
>>1234426
It's not an English language site, you thick cunt. "Responsable" is just Spanish for "responsible". Not to mention the site hosting the pdf did not publish, nor write the book.
http://www.responsable.net/
>>1233123
>China
>libertarian socialist
I'm by no means a proponent of libertarian socialism, but the ideology assumes that those involved in such a system would consent to socialism and therefore there would be no need of an authoritarian government.
>>1234429
I agree we need /some/ democracy, but not everyone is equal. It's not right that a PhD in economics has an equal vote as an unemployed dole bludger. We're not all equal, and that needs to be acknowledged.
>Unashamed intellectual elitist
>>1234441
Well in that case, fair enough. I withdraw my criticism.
>>1234448
>It's not right that a PhD in economics has an equal vote as an unemployed dole bludger
You're right.
The man who was wise enough not to waste money and time on a university education in pseudoscience deserves the greater vote.
>>1233210
>Implying a state of no subjugation is possible.
It is, it's just that governments always seek to destroy such states. Literally every successful anarchist system has been destroyed by governments.
>>1233249
>implying people make totally 100% rational political decisions 100% of the time that can't be in any way influenced by government-controlled advertising, ignorance, research suppression or threat of violence
>>1234453
So you seriously believe that the uneducated are superior? Good luck in life; You'll need it.
>>1233255
Amazing what 30% freer markets can do
Capitalism a best
>>1234461
1. In this specific instance NEETs are superior
2. In general economics grads are inferior.
I'm not surprised a /b/ pleb is pro-wagecuck and bought the economics meme.
>>1233564
>They work there because they can't get a job anywhere else.
And this is because the government targets local small businesses with taxation and regulations while empowering corporations like walmart via bailouts and other protective legislation. Corporations use the government to kill competition, and thus we are here now where people are forced to work at walmart. Take the government and its legislation out of the equation, then walmart would be forced to raise wages or face collapse.
>>1234334
>We already have democratically owned companies, they're called co-ops and largely work fine.
They have nothing of democratic. There are people that call the shots there,and coops reinvest very little in capital,so they lag behind in wider markets,and can only work on a very small scale.
> No one wants to work at Walmart. The people who work there do so because they can't get a job anywhere else, and likely for similar reasons wouldn't be approved for a loan to open a small business.
False. Dont know why you have to lie on the internet. There are lots of people that want to work in a very stress light job,with little qualification,even if the pay is small.
> Additionally this is no risk at all in this instance, as the punishment for failure is having to work for a living which they already do.
Do you know that debts get carried even if you default right,in most cases? It can cripple a person economically for a decade or so.
>The reason they all don't open small business is not for a lack of risk-taking as they have nothing to lose, the reason is opening a business requires a certain level of initial economic advantage to enter into that minimum-wage labourers generally would not have available.
If you can give a guarantee,they usually give you the loan. Most people own cars,really is not that hard to open a bussiness if you save little money and you are willing to take risks,just look how many Chinese or pakis open groceries stores world wide,and I can tell you that they didnt come in a better socioeconomic position than a Walmarkt worker. It is simple. Some people,if not most, preffer to have a wage,and dont have to worry about debt,finances,dealing with providers or competition.
>>1234429
>unalienable rights
>guaranteed by the state
MUH THIN BLUE LINE
>>1234469
I'm fascinated now. Please explain to me how less education equates to a more valuable person. Explain how being more knowledgeable, more educated, and more intelligent makes someone better equipped to contribute to the functioning of their nation. If you're not wrong, and NEETs are the superior beings, I will happily an hero, because a world where stupidity rules is not a world I want to live in. Prove me wrong, and I'll drink metho and set my lungs on fire for your amusement.
>>1234495
>They have nothing of democratic. There are people that call the shots there
>>1234511
Sorry, typo, less* equipped.
Apologies, I'm extremely drunk.
>>1234511
NEETs are the superior beings for the very simple reason that they have managed to effectively exploit the system, but took fullest advantage of their means by distilling their desires only down to the most base and unignorable needs. The need to eat, sleep, drink, get comfy and not to be bored.
NEETs have managed to satisfy these desires with absolutely no effort expended on their part. They have all their basic biological needs met, whilst also (as far as 4chan NEETs go at least) letting go of socially imposed desires and expectations. They do not need gf, they do not need friends, they do not need any kind of social status or feeling of worth at all, they are satisfied with simple amusements like shitposting and masturbating.
All in life is the pursuit of contentment, and NEETs have achieved it with pure effortlessness. There is no higher a personal accomplishment than this.
>>1234534
I assume you are either a NEET, or a devil's advocate, but assuming you're a NEET... does it not bother you that your entire existence is dependent on others? That if they one day decide "I've had enough of being leeched" you have absolutely nothing to fall back on? Can you call yourself successful when you can't stand on your own two feet?
>>1234534
>NEET
>Content
>>1234542
I'm not a NEET, I work part-time and go to school with the ambition of becoming a teacher. However I would be much happier if I could let go of my social desires and live every day like a holiday.
> Can you call yourself successful when you can't stand on your own two feet?
On the contrary when your life is so effortless that you do not even need to stand on your own two feet that is true success, like having property so lucrative that you do not need to work a day ever again only without the requirement to cultivate it first.
>>1234557
>having property so lucrative that you do not need to work a day ever again
And that just comes out of thin air?
>>1234444
My point of adding that picture was the benefits of capitalism over socialism.
>>1234566
That's why I said
> only without the requirement to cultivate it first.
NEETs have already achieved the same result, only without expending any effort.
>>1234534
>Not enjoying the struggle
Stay pleb, Mr NEETbux
>>1234576
But NEETs are not standing on their own feet. They rely on their family to support them. If their family finally decides "Enough is enough" what can they do? Each man, no matter their background, should find their own feet. Society doesn't exist to be exploited. I resent that AT LEAST 20% of of my income pays for NEETs and degenerates to live a life of sloth, while they drain the coffers of an over-reaching government. NEETs are FAR too comfortable, and my lost income would be far better spent on more meaningful causes than some fat cunt getting stoned and playing WoW.
We're all part of society whether we like it or not, and we either contribute, or hold everyone back by wasting their hard earned money.
Don't get me wrong: I'd love to spend every day drinking, smoking, and doing whatever I want, but I'll be damned if I do so at someone else's expense.
>>1234608
Free will doesn't exist, so I have no choice but to sit in my basement all day. Thanks for the tax dollars senpai, Blood and Wine wasn't gonna buy itself :^)
>>1234608
Exactly, they are successfully exploiting you so that they can do nothing. They are the master and you are the slave. They feel no social imperitive to behave otherwise, so they are free to live happily without any effort of their own. This is why they are superior, they can freely exploit the system to live a comfy life whereas wagecucks cannot because they cannot let go of their social hang-ups.
>They rely on their family to support them. If their family finally decides "Enough is enough" what can they do?
A lot of them live in state assisted housing, I imagine if the ones that don't were kicked out then the state would sort them out with it too.
>>1234633
You are truly the cancer plaguing humankind, and you sicken me.
>>1234643
Another reason I'm not an american. The Australian welfare system is still far too generous, but 90% of people on the dole don't want to be. The other 10% somehow get by, but they are universally hated and looked down upon. Here, being a "dole bludger" is the lowest possible social class.
>>1233595
What about Revolutionary Catalonia? Ancoms say it was anarchist but I think it's doublespeak, in other words having a state but refusing to call it so.
>>1233235
>>1233684
Poverty is the natural state of mankind. Unproductive people are doomed to it.
Toppest of keks
>>1234756
It's hard work duping people into believing Christianity
>>1234542
The only possible existence that is not dependent on others is the one of the total hermit. Living in society makes you absolutely dependant.
>>1233161
Libertarian socialists are a lot older than the fall of the USSR.
They often found themselves on the wrong end of Soviet guns in places like Spain.
>>1234082
>Most companies run on debt/savings in the first 3 years.
and why is this? its because in capitalist society you have to borrow capital in order to begin your corporation. a certain amount of capital is required to be able to purchase the land and tools that can enable you to call your new purchase a 'means of production.' i agree that most companies have to run on savings for the first three years, because the system requires them to go into debt to have the means necessary to create a company. this is not an issue under socialism.
how would socialist production work then? socialist production aims to do away with capital being necessary to start a company. production would be started based on whether it was needed by the community or not, not whether the company could produce a profit. the people you'd be attempting to impress would be the local community members then, not a bank that wishes to see some return on their investment in your start up business.
thus, a person who wants to start a company in a socialist society needs to confront local representatives of an area's economy, propose their idea, and the local representatives would assess whether the service this company is proposing to serve is necessary, and these representatives would weigh the cost of providing the materials required for this means of production (ie, construction of a factory, production of tools, construction of machinery assuming none exist) to produce the stuff the budding company wanted to produce.
obviously there's a risk taken here. there's no guarantee that the company would be successful in producing some good. however, in a socialist society, ANYBODY can use the means of production to produce their own goods, so just because one set of workers can't produce goods from a means of production does not mean that the remainder of the community couldn't try their hand at it if they wish to produce the good made by that means of production.
>>1234901
>thus, a person who wants to start a company in a socialist society needs to confront local representatives of an area's economy, propose their idea, and the local representatives would assess whether the service this company is proposing to serve is necessary, and these representatives would weigh the cost of providing the materials required for this means of production (ie, construction of a factory, production of tools, construction of machinery assuming none exist) to produce the stuff the budding company wanted to produce.
What incentive would people have to start a company then?
>>1234756
Yeah,it is not like humans lived like hunter gatherers and in little tribes for most of the time,and I doubt that you consider that "wealthy".
>>1234975
well, there's no profit motive for them in a socialist society, since there's no profit to be made. instead, someone would want to start a company because they see some popular demand for its goods or services, or they have a personal interest in being able to produce a certain type of good themselves. absent a profit motive, people will have the ability to choose what sort of pursuits are worth pursuing, and they will pursue those because they want to, not because doing so is profitable.
most people think the above sounds like bullshit, because they cannot fathom a world without profit. i would ask you to look at primitive societies to find evidence that it works economically.
>people are actually surprised at the association of libertarianism with socialism
This is some orwellian shit.
>>1234901
>and why is this?
You need to build a network before you start selling the product. It takes time to build a constumer base.
> because the system requires them to go into debt to have the means necessary to create a company. this is not an issue under socialism.
Even when companies are started only on savings the usually lose money at the beginning. Companies need to build trust before having an stable costumer base. If the workers owned the means of production,this would still be the case.
> production would be started based on whether it was needed by the community or not, not whether the company could produce a profit
So you kill entrepreneurship in one swim. Dont you think that this wouldn't stagnate the economy? Why would the community invest in something if they dont see inmedient profit,even if it is a genius idea?
> the people you'd be attempting to impress would be the local community members then, not a bank that wishes to see some return on their investment in your start up business.
How is this good? The people of the comunity should be extremely educated,which is not the norm. That would just lead to stupid or very safe investments.
Dont you realise thay this would stagnate the economy into a vicious cicle,and would even lead to economic stagnation? How is this libertarian society going to compete with foreing countries? It is obvious as fuck that the cost of production there would be very expensive. Is the goverment going to impose 100% tariffs to protect local industry? How is that libertarian if so?
>>1235027
They need to read capitalism, socialism and Democracy by Joseph Schumpeter.
Socialism kills the entrepreneurial spirit.
>>1233123
USSR 1925-1953
I am told GULAGs liberated idiots from their prejudices, might work with libertarians too.
>>1235027
>consumer base/trust points
your consumer base under socialism is the locality that your goods can be distributed to, and perhaps some people abroad who have some interest in your product. your company will not be ok'd to begin with if there isn't sufficient interest in the stuff you're going to be making, because socialism's production operates based on whether humans need or want your product, not whether it is potentially profitable.
>So you kill entrepreneurship in one swim. Dont you think that this wouldn't stagnate the economy? Why would the community invest in something if they don't see immediate profit,even if it is a genius idea?
no, its not a bad idea. this doesn't kill entrepreneurship. it kills entrepreneurship for goods that people see no value in, or a product that the community sees no real use for. this would kill entrepreneurship of any and all products that aren't sufficiently desired by the market- same as in capitalism, where entrepreneurs who product a product that most people don't want fail. its no different. we weed out bad ideas and propagate good ones. demand is accounted for at every step of the socialist production process.
>How is this good? The people of the community should be extremely educated,which is not the norm. That would just lead to stupid or very safe investments.
the consumerbase of today is not extremely educated, yet they can still make mostly rational decisions about what they need or don't need when they interact with the market. i believe you overstate the intelligence required for a group of people to decide whether some good or service would be beneficial to have or not.
1/2
>>1235027
>Dont you realise thay this would stagnate the economy into a vicious cicle,and would even lead to economic stagnation?
it only kills economy if you decide that this form of production deciding would kill any and all entrepreneurship, which i think i've sufficiently proven wrong. the only stuff that doesn't get produced is the stuff that wouldn't get bought under capitalism anyway. the stuff that would fail in capitalism fails in socialism. the stuff that would succeed in capitalism succeeds in socialism.
>How is this libertarian society going to compete with foreign countries?
the libertarian society won't be competing with foreign countries at all since it doesn't incorporate profit into its production cycle in the slightest. by every common metric, the libertarian society will be completely and totally failing according to all profit metrics. however, it will still produce goods, so its GDP may be able to compete, presuming a large enough society with a large enough amount of people involved in production.
>It is obvious as fuck that the cost of production there would be very expensive.
expensive in what sense? this society doesn't have a concept of wages. the only input cost is labor in a socialist society. production isn't more or less expensive than capitalist society if we're observing the labor required to get production done, because its not like socialism is going to radically change the way people build buildings or produce goods. it changes how people are compensated for that and how production is organized. production is now organized based on direct popular demand, and people are compensated in goods so long as they contribute to the society in a productive manner.
2/3
>>1235081
Potentially profitable means that people need or want your product. So that point is not a good one.
Profits come from people choosing to buy your product as it is the best for them. Monopoly is a different case, but that's for the government to break up/regulate.
>>1235027
>tariffs
if its the case that goods outside the libertarian society are better than the goods inside the libertarian society, then i would expect the society to fall apart quickly, yes.
however, i'll propose the following argument. this society is made up of workers. workers want to best possible product for their time spent. in capitalism, the capitalist is the one who decides how the product is created. the capitalist seeks profit over effectiveness in every case. this means that a shoe under capitalism is going to wear fairly quickly and be good for a few months at most. under socialism, the worker obviously desires a shoe that would be a fair bit more effective than the shoe the capitalist creates. there's no reason why workers in a libertarian society wouldn't create the best possible good for their time spent. there's no reason to assume that the libertarian society's goods would be poor following the logic of the worker owning the means of production. the worker is going to be using the goods that they're creating, so they'll try damn hard to make sure those goods are effective.
of course, creating more effective shoes takes more expensive material and likely a more involved production process. that takes obtaining those materials and raising the time spent on each shoe produced. supposing the libertarian society is in a world where materials required to create the best possible product are located in a capitalist society's borders, that'd be a pretty difficult situation to square. the libertarian society would have to pay an astronomical amount to get this material, because the capitalist society will not make any favorable deals with the society, most certainly. the capitalist society would like nothing more than to stamp the libertarian society out of existence and replace it with a for profit society that creates inefficient products that maximize profitmaking. this is why many commies will advocate for a global revolution.
3/4
>>1235027
>How is that libertarian if so?
well, the entire society is based on free association. workers can work where they'd like. workers can create products they want to create. workers can decide whether they'd like to partake in the local government or not. there's more freedom here than in any capitalist society. you'd be hard pressed to prove otherwise, i think.
4/4
took me a while, but i'm done. respond at your leisure. i'll be here all day.
>>1235081
>your consumer base under socialism is the locality that your goods can be distributed to, and perhaps some people abroad who have some interest in your product. your company will not be ok'd to begin with if there isn't sufficient interest in the stuff you're going to be making, because socialism's production operates based on whether humans need or want your product, not whether it is potentially profitable.
You know that at the begonning people though that electricity would have little use. How do you expect a bunch of low educated workers to determine what can bring a venefit or not? Putting the word social,community or democratic on something doesnt automatically make it better.
> it kills entrepreneurship for goods that people see no value in.
Basically entrepreneurship. Value may change with time or with the person. Probably if you asked people 60 years ago if building a computer development plant was required or smart to invest in people would call you nuts,until Jobs and Wozniak made computers a viable product in the market. In your little model,technological stagnation would be for granted.
> the consumerbase of today is not extremely educated, yet they can still make mostly rational decisions about what they need or don't need when they interact with the market. i believe you overstate the intelligence required for a group of people to decide whether some good or service would be beneficial to have or not.
I overstate nothing. If some nerdy guy came to me with the idea of making a superconduct facility that would take 20 years to give the first product,I wouldnt be capable if he is bullshitting me or not. The market is huge,with a lot of small decissions taken each minute. If you think that you could tame it with a direct democracy,you are kind of naive.
>>1235111
>Potentially profitable means that people need or want your product. So that point is not a good one.
sure. fair point. i agree they're essentially the same thing, i should've recognized that when i typed that up.
>Profits come from people choosing to buy your product as it is the best for them.
this is actually not strictly true. profits come from the disparity between how much a product costs to produce and how much it is sold for. obviously the purchasing aspect is the final part of the profitmaking process and matters but it is not the most integral part to profitmaking, the part that takes place in the production stage and enables profitmaking to begin with.
>Monopoly is a different case, but that's for the government to break up/regulate.
supposing that there's one company that produces one type of good in a socialist country, its not strictly bad for that to be the case because the products here aren't being sold. they're being stockpiled. monopoly is obviously bad in a capitalist society because it enables a company to charge more than people believe is reasonable for that good, but under socialism it really doesn't matter because goods aren't being sold, as stated. there can be as many or as few producers as would be needed for any given set of goods.
>>1235107
>the stuff that would fail in capitalism fails in socialism. the stuff that would succeed in capitalism succeeds in socialism.
No,as you just said that people would choose if something is desirable a priori,which is dumb. Until you see the end product and how it really works,you cant determine if it will succed or not. This is pretty basic.
> incorporate profit into its production cycle
Then as there are no interest in profit,it would just be much easier to produce outside of the community,as products from outside would be just cheaper,making the local economy produce little wealth at all,and producing stuff that may never be sold.
> this society doesn't have a concept of wages. the only input cost is labor in a socialist society
This is just dumb. Capital makes more of a cost an impact on any manufacturing process.
> production is now organized based on direct popular demand
This is just dumb. The economy would just be lagging behind the consumer base all the time,and wouldnt allow to any real advanced,as the production would be determine on people's demand at one point of time,with no room to prediction.
>>1234574
Keynesianism isn't Capitalism.
>>1235127
>however, i'll propose the following argument. this society is made up of workers. workers want to best possible product for their time spent. in capitalism, the capitalist is the one who decides how the product is created. the capitalist seeks profit over effectiveness in every case. this means that a shoe under capitalism is going to wear fairly quickly and be good for a few months at most. under socialism, the worker obviously desires a shoe that would be a fair bit more effective than the shoe the capitalist creates. there's no reason why workers in a libertarian society wouldn't create the best possible good for their time spent. there's no reason to assume that the libertarian society's goods would be poor following the logic of the worker owning the means of production. the worker is going to be using the goods that they're creating, so they'll try damn hard to make sure those goods are effective.
This is just based on assumptions. In a capitalist economy,there are luxury products,which debunks your whole paragraph. In capitalism,you can choose your provider and change it. In your society others would choose your provider. And why would workers make better products? Most of them lack the theoretical knowledge to build the product,and rely heavily on instructions. A luxury company from a capitalist society could just flood the communities market with the same product but cheaper,as they dont need to follow the communities regulations,and can adapt their product as they please. You seem to forget the huge advantage that a totaly independent factory would have over a socialist one. People could just build the same factory outside of the community and produce the same product cheaper
>>1235127
One capitalist makes products that wear out quickly. Another makes products that last for a long time. They are in competition. Who do you think makes the most profit? Assuming essentially the same production costs. People make long term profits through innovation and fulfilling peoples demand. Fucking people over is unprofitable in the long run.
Under your socialism the worker might not have the knowledge of shoe making if he has to make them himself. When the machine depreciates the individual worker has a low incentive to repair the machine (tragedy of the commons). The profit motive is there to encourage innovation and re-investment in the business.
Capitalist products tend to be efficient as consumers buy the most efficient good. You assume all capitalists are monopolists which isn't the case most of the time. Competition drives the system, competition gets things done at the lowest cost.
>>1235138
>How do you expect a bunch of low educated workers to determine what can bring a benefit or not?
the same way that investors do in every case of entrepreneurship in capitalism. they'll take a risk. it may or may not pan out, but the risk would be taken based on how much effort needs to be provided to produce this risk-involving good.
you use the jobs and wozniak example. in a socialist society, someone who proposed the creation of a mac OS would need the following things to work:
a set of computers
sufficient means of subsistence to not die
that's it. i'm assuming they already have a house to sleep in. jobs and wozniak produced their first good with just computers and their labor. if i was a representative of the local economy under socialist society i'd look at the cost required to allow these guys to produce their work and laugh, because its so goddamn pitiful. supposing these two kids can show me that they're intelligent and have the ability to create something great if they're given the opportunity to try, i'd provide the resources necessary for their work because there appeared to be a high chance they'd create something great with their labor, and there's a rather low cost required to allow them to perform their work.
>If some nerdy guy came to me with the idea of making a superconduct facility that would take 20 years to give the first product,I wouldnt be capable if he is bullshitting me or not.
yeah, this is totally true. i won't debate this. investors have the same problem today, don't they? since the local representatives of workers operate in a similar way to investors, i don't see why the group couldn't look at this guy's proposition and wonder whether the risk was worth it or not. it operates in the same fashion as capitalism with a different set of values, ie use over profitability.
cont in next post
>>1235138
>If you think that you could tame it with a direct democracy,you are kind of naive.
i haven't been advocating for direct democracy in control of production, no. i'm advocating for groups of worker representatives to be able to be accurate voices of their locality under socialism. i don't believe we should have some sort of website where each and every worker votes on every productive choice. at the same time though, this representative workers council needs to be accountable to the people it serves in a way that our current representative democracy is not accountable. if at some point a locality of workers feels their representative is not making production decisions that reflect their desires, they can recall that representative and place in a new one who better fits the bill.
>>1234997
Yes because primitive societies produce so much.
>>1235133
>well, the entire society is based on free association
No. As I can only associate on the terms of the majority. That is called limited association
>workers can work where they'd like.
Not if the community says other wise
>workers can create products they want to create.
Not if the community says other wise
>workers can decide whether they'd like to partake in the local government or not.
And the majority would impose their decission on the worker even if he disagrees
> there's more freedom here than in any capitalist society.
No in capitalism I can tell people to fuck off,and tell them that they are doing it the wrong way and start my bussiness without arbitrary restrintions. Your concept of liberty is "liberty is what the community determines,but as that is what everyone likes,people are totally free" which is bullshit.
>you'd be hard pressed to prove otherwise, i think.
I just did.
![quote-labor-is-prior-to-and-independent-of-capital-capital-is-only-the-fruit-of-labor-and-could-never-abraham-lincoln-346706[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/YnpsNfm.jpg "quote-labor-is-prior-to-and-independent-of-capital-capital-is-only-the-fruit-of-labor-and-could-never-abraham-lincoln-346706[1].jpg")
>>1235166
>you cant determine if it will succeed or not.
right, i agree. a risk would be taken in any case where the immediate value of some good or service is not visible. same as capitalism with investors. some risks would be taken. this isn't an issue as far as i can see. if you have a further argument regarding this point please elaborate so i can have a better idea of your grievance.
>Then as there are no interest in profit,it would just be much easier to produce outside of the community,as products from outside would be just cheaper,making the local economy produce little wealth at all,and producing stuff that may never be sold.
yeah, a totally fair point. this is again a common reason why international revolution is stressed by commies, because capitalists would be able to outcompete commies with their low wages. i can't argue with that.
>This is just dumb. Capital makes more of a cost an impact on any manufacturing process.
and any and all capital is produced with labor! all machines that produce goods are created by humans. all land is tilled by humans, all factories are produced by humans, and so on. capital's source is labor, 100% of the time.
>This is just dumb. The economy would just be lagging behind the consumer base all the time,and wouldnt allow to any real advanced,as the production would be determine on people's demand at one point of time,with no room to prediction.
in what sense would the economy be lagging behind? goods are still created with the same speed and efficiency as capitalism. the difference is the number of people who are in control of oking entrepreneurial pursuits, but this can be divvy'd up further if it is shown to be exceptionally inefficient.
its not as if investors can predict the market either. no one has any idea at any point what the people will demand in the future. they have limited predictive ability that there's no rational reason to assume socialist societies wouldn't use as well.
>>1235193
>the same way that investors do in every case of entrepreneurship in capitalism. they'll take a risk. it may or may not pan out, but the risk would be taken based on how much effort needs to be provided to produce this risk-involving good.
The investors take the hit if their investment fails,and they are usually pretty informed. If the majority of people take a risk that I dont want to,I will take the hit myself for their mistake.
>that's it. i'm assuming they already have a house to sleep in. jobs and wozniak produced their first good with just computers and their labor. if i was a representative of the local economy under socialist society i'd look at the cost required to allow these guys to produce their work and laugh, because its so goddamn pitiful. supposing these two kids can show me that they're intelligent and have the ability to create something great if they're given the opportunity to try, i'd provide the resources necessary for their work because there appeared to be a high chance they'd create something great with their labor, and there's a rather low cost required to allow them to perform their work.
How is this an argument? You just made up a narrative to justify something. For having a computer first of all you would need someone that produces the pieces,which in your socialist dream,would need the approval of the comunity,which may not agree with this.
>yeah, this is totally true. i won't debate this. investors have the same problem today, don't they? since the local representatives of workers operate in a similar way to investors, i don't see why the group couldn't look at this guy's proposition and wonder whether the risk was worth it or not. it operates in the same fashion as capitalism with a different set of values, ie use over profitability.
Investors take the risk themselfs. The community would take the risk as a whole. There is a huge difference here
>>1235203
>i haven't been advocating for direct democracy in control of production, no. i'm advocating for groups of worker representatives to be able to be accurate voices of their locality under socialism. i don't believe we should have some sort of website where each and every worker votes on every productive choice. at the same time though, this representative workers council needs to be accountable to the people it serves in a way that our current representative democracy is not accountable. if at some point a locality of workers feels their representative is not making production decisions that reflect their desires, they can recall that representative and place in a new one who better fits the bill
So would just expand parliamentarism to ridicolous extends. And there is the problem that representation and representatives can be corrupted. And in this case the hit would be taken by everyone. If a capitalist or investor screws up he goes bankrupt,not me. Huge difference here
>>1235186
>based on assumptions.
logical ones that i have no reason not to assume would be true in most cases.
>In a capitalist economy,there are luxury products,which debunks your whole paragraph.
gonna need to elaborate a little bit more. i don't see why the existence of luxury products makes my point irrelevant. people will still desire these products in socialism and they will be produced by willing parties.
>In capitalism,you can choose your provider and change it.
right, i have the choice between several entities whose primarily goal is profitmaking and that goal has been integrated into their product making at all points in time. as a consumer, i get a bung deal in many cases as a result of this.
>Most of them lack the theoretical knowledge to build the product,and rely heavily on instructions.
right, so they'd learn by experimentation on what the best method of creating long lasting products would be. no one knows how to create the most efficient good in every case because efficiency is not prized under capitalism unless doing so is profitable.
>A luxury company from a capitalist society could just flood the communities market with the same product but cheaper,as they dont need to follow the communities regulations,and can adapt their product as they please.
>People could just build the same factory outside of the community and produce the same product cheaper
right, i don't deny that that's a complication. this is why is a worldwide revolution is necessary.
>>1235153
If no one buys your product, there is no profit. Of course supply plays a role in determining the amount supplied (price is set so that supply=demand it's a method of allocating resources). But demand tends to create supply. People invest to increase supply to accommodate for increased demand or anticipated demand increases. You can produce all you like but if people don't demand your product enough you'll make a loss.
Would it not be a waste if people over produce shoes when t-shirts are being under produced?
Even if you have a stockpile of shoes for later use you are still lacking t-shirts for the time being.
The assumption that the number of producers of a good would equal the number needed requires some sort of mechanism for re-allocating labour to different sectors. In a capitalist society this is the role of profit. In a socialist society I can see people doing it out of kindness of their hearts, but I don't believe most would and a minor bit of self interest.
People respond to incentives.
I'm not some ancap moron, I just believe that markets with a small amount of regulation (think correcting market failures/anti-trust), the legal system and institutions needed with a social safety net works best. A land value tax to partly pay for the unemployed/disabled and lower gains from land rents is a bonus. Where markets don't work at all (healthcare etc) then the government can step in. Progressive taxes etc
>>1235244
>and any and all capital is produced with labor! all machines that produce goods are created by humans. all land is tilled by humans, all factories are produced by humans, and so on. capital's source is labor, 100% of the time.
Not all. Capital is starting to produce itself. And labour is not a unit,neither is capital. If you take labour as it is,and not as a unit,you will see that is role is different from capital. Labour alone cant mine,or drill oil. The origin of capital is irrelevant to its importance.
>
in what sense would the economy be lagging behind? goods are still created with the same speed and efficiency as capitalism. the difference is the number of people who are in control of oking entrepreneurial pursuits, but this can be divvy'd up further if it is shown to be exceptionally inefficient.
You just said,that production would be determined by the will of the people,meaning,that production would go after the people make the choice of producing something. Meaning that no room to prediction is open,as it is alredy determined. If the community demands wheat,but you know that a plage may be hittimg wheat,which would make its production a waste and cause hunger,but the community ignores you and wants wheat,people would die for the lack of prediction due the rigidity of the system
>>1235168
Keynesianism IS capitalism. Keynes wrote the general theory to defend capitalism and save it from itself at a time when other ideas were becoming more popular.
>>1235269
>gonna need to elaborate a little bit more. i don't see why the existence of luxury products makes my point irrelevant. people will still desire these products in socialism and they will be produced by willing parties.
You said that capitalist products tend to be crappy,to maximize profit. Luxury products just debunk this,as the whole pourpose of the product is quality.
> right, i have the choice between several entities whose primarily goal is profitmaking and that goal has been integrated into their product making at all points in time. as a consumer, i get a bung deal in many cases as a result of this.
There are no profit organizarions,and even then,if the provider fails you,you can just get another one, or sabotage the product,to force them to improve it. This happens all the time,specially visible in infustries like videogames,in which online critique has forced companies into patching or giving free content to consumers.
> right, i don't deny that that's a complication. this is why is a worldwide revolution is necessary.
Then you will need a goverment to kill all none socialist places which goes against the very pronciple of libertarianism
>>1235191
>Assuming essentially the same production costs.
the production costs wouldn't be the same because one shoe requires sturdier materials to last longer. the guy who makes a moderately long lasting shoe is going to make more profit so long as he prices his shoe that takes into account the duration the longer lasting shoe lasts. ie, the long lasting shoe lasts x duration, so i'll make my shoe last 1/2x the duration as 49% the cost of the shoe that lasts x duration. suddenly nobody is going to buy the x duration shoe because the other shoe is an objectively better choice. the 1/2x duration shoe guy gets a mass of the market share.
>Fucking people over is unprofitable in the long run.
fucking people over IS unprofitable if there's a choice that doesn't fuck them over, i agree.
would you say the current shoe market has a choice that doesn't 'fuck over' the consumer though? every shoe i can buy lasts a relatively short duration and they all cost around the same price except for some luxury brands. i don't see a best case here. there's no golden shoe that maximizes efficiency available to me.
if there is, let me know, since i'll buy it.
>(tragedy of the commons).
the tragedy of the commons is an argument that has no basis in rationality. there's absolutely no reason to assume that production wouldn't be planned in any way to account for the potential repair costs that would come with use of the productive property. people communicate. the tragedy of the commons assumes that people don't communicate and let things depreciate without letting others know.
>The profit motive is there to encourage innovation
people don't stop innovating just because there's no profit to be made. they start innovating for reasons other than profit.
>competition gets things done at the lowest cost.
and often creates goods of around the same level of efficiency, which is not necessarily the best case for the consumer.
>>1233137
>aware of is/ought fallacy
>still thinks a thing can be right
>>1235244
If people were being paid lower real wages in a capitalist society than a communist society, they would move to the communist society. People vote with their feet.
>>1235206
what primitive societies lacked was industrialization. that's why they weren't able to produce so much. the introduction of a capitalist who takes some percentage of the value made off of the goods the workers created is not the magic ingredient for prosperity. its the industrialization aspect of capitalism that creates wealth. capitalists only take away wealth that the worker could have but doesn't get because the capitalist says he's entitled to some portion of the value of the good. it is factually true that if the capitalist did not exist in any facet of production there would be more wealth for the majority of people today.
>>1235303
>Keynesianism IS capitalism
Read pic related and Mises.
>>1235331
>If people were being paid lower real wages in a capitalist society than a communist society, they would move to the communist society. People vote with their feet.
Dont even need to pay lower ot compete against a determinist factory. A capitalist one would just have way more freedom to operate and invest ad they please. That is the reason why comunist countries are the ones building fences,as capitalist competition,can give more and still be way mire competitive
>>1235213
let me clarify that even if a small percentage of the community wants a specific good that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be created under socialism. it would be created assuming the amount of resources necessary to produce the good only a small percentage of people want is reasonable relative to the demand for it. the community at large might want another good, but nothing's stopping the worker council from oking a smaller project that has limited appeal.
the workers CAN work where they like, but of course some jobs will still need to be done. agriculture comes to mind as one of the primary importance. so long as humans still need to labor to live, yes, this libertarian society will need workers to work at certain places. i'm of the mind you can't really have a libertarian society until human labor is made irrelevant anyway. that doesn't mean that while human labor is still necessary that everyone will work the same job all the time though. all that matters is that the important work is getting done by some people who are qualified to do so. someone who worked agriculture one day can work on something else the other day so long as a sufficiently skilled person takes their place on the field.
>No in capitalism I can tell people to fuck off,and tell them that they are doing it the wrong way and start my business without arbitrary restrictions.
which restriction in socialist society is arbitrary? i don't see it. elaborate for me if you would.
what concept of liberty do you want to implement? what is your ideal libertarian society? why is it more or less free than socialism would be?
>>1235252
>The investors take the hit if their investment fails,and they are usually pretty informed. If the majority of people take a risk that I dont want to,I will take the hit myself for their mistake.
its not necessarily true that you personally would take the hit for the production of this entrepreneurship. what makes the most sense to me is to have the workers who have an interest in the production of the entrepreneurship take the risk- those who care are the ones who help build the building that would house the entrepreneurship, and they would supply the food that feeds the workers who work at the entrepreneurship, and so on. you specifically won't have to be involved.
>For having a computer first of all you would need someone that produces the pieces,which in your socialist dream,would need the approval of the community,which may not agree with this.
the whole community might not agree, but so long as a few people agree- a few enough people with enough interest to produce a computer necessary for jobs and wozniak- that's enough to suffice.
>Investors take the risk themselves. The community would take the risk as a whole. There is a huge difference here
true. this is just following after a basic socialist assumption that it makes the most sense to have people be more involved in economic decisions so that their will can be enacted better.
if you don't agree with that principle that's fine, though i would think that opinion is quite opposite to what many libertarians would like...
is libertarianism not interested in giving the people as a broad category as much control over their lives as possible? am i wrong here? what is libertarianism to you guys?
>>1235357
>which restriction in socialist society is arbitrary?
People's will is something arbitrary,which is the whole basis of your topic.
>what concept of liberty do you want to implement?
Liberty:freedom from external or foreign rule; independence. Basically autonomy to the individual.
> what is your ideal libertarian society?
I am not a libertarian myself,but I guess classicalish liberalism would be fine by me.
>why is it more or less free than socialism would be?
Because in socialism there would be no autonomy. All the decissions would rely on one single entity, that determines whether my ideas are bullshit or not,and doesnt allow me to fullfill them.
>>1235337
>"The ultimate yardstick of an economic theorem's correctness or incorrectness is solely reason unaided by experience"
>people actually take mises seriously
>>1235322
If the half duration shoe is the better choice, why wouldn't I pick it? I can just buy the shoe after 1/2x time. The shoe seller would have to factor in my transaction costs are part of his pricing. That's not inefficient.
Maybe because shoes don't last that long, at that production price? You could buy one that last for a longer period of time but for a higher price. There no reason to suggest that just because the shoe owner made the shoe it must wear out less by use.
Why would I communicate? I make my shoes bugger off until they are broken. Then I think I'll let someone else fix the machine, but everyone is thinking the same thing. Private property provides a large incentive to fix the machine, which actually provides a benefit to the community (as they now have more shoes). In socialism the community can cooperate but that's harder to achieve.
Remove all profit from innovations and I guarantee the number of innovations will drop. The opportunity cost of leisure will out weigh the benefit from innovating.
Same product, lower cost but not a benefit to the consumer?
>>1235337
Do not associate Milton with Mises.
Fuck off.
Keynesianism is a form of capitalism. That doesn't mean it's the best form. To quote Milton Friedman: "we're all Keynesians now".
>>1235294
>Would it not be a waste if people over produce shoes when t-shirts are being under produced?
it would. if its true that t shirts are being under produced we could have workers from the shoe factory move to the t shirt factory and produce more t shirts such that there's an equilibrium (or close to one) of the supply for t shirts and the demand for t shirts. obviously its preferable that we're able to predict when t shirts will be under produced relative to demand. computers come in handy here, especially programs that can determine the best possible configuration of labor and resources at any time.
so, as you might guess, my answer to the economic calculation problem is some sort of program that can efficiently allocate resources and labor. that's my response to you. this is why technological advancement is of importance before some large scale communist experiment can succeed. because while it might be possible for an economy to be planned on such a large scale, it would surely be quite difficult to be able to have such predictive capacity on a large scale. computers can handle this better than humans can.
>>1235372
>its not necessarily true that you personally would take the hit for the production of this entrepreneurship. what makes the most sense to me is to have the workers who have an interest in the production of the entrepreneurship take the risk- those who care are the ones who help build the building that would house the entrepreneurship, and they would supply the food that feeds the workers who work at the entrepreneurship, and so on. you specifically won't have to be involved.
So if noone is interested on farming,as there are no incentive to it,food sortages could be huge,as society wouldnt be profit driven.
> the whole community might not agree, but so long as a few people agree- a few enough people with enough interest to produce a computer necessary for jobs and wozniak- that's enough to suffice.
For that you would need miners to get Lithium. And as there is no profit for mining i doubt that anyone would be interested in such labour.
> is libertarianism not interested in giving the people as a broad category as much control over their lives as possible?
Yes,that is why the community should not determine other people actions.
I am going to bed. I may answer you tomorrow if you are interested.
>>1235385
Not to mention that friedman models are almost indistinguishable from keynesian models. He also said he didn't liked hayek's economics.
>>1235387
>Some sort of programming that can efficiently allocate resources and labour
>What are markets?
You don't even need computers, but they help.
Maybe we could give people a reward for moving to the in-demand industries? Maybe it could be called profit? I dunno but it sounds catchy.
>>1235396
Or you can just replace price signals with stock signals.
>>1235393
Hayek was wrong for a lot of his economics. Political philosophy is the only reason I like Hayek.
Friedman is great. Have you read capitalism and Freedom?
>>1235404
Stock values are prices.
>Labour alone cant mine,or drill oil.
yeah, i accept that there's a qualitative difference between the acts labor and capital can perform. and sure, and sure, capital can produce itself at this point (i assume you might be referring to a hypothetical assembly line that produces capital without any labor input). i don't have much of an issue admitting that capital has a higher cost impact on production than labor. my point is that capital needs labor to continue operating (repairs), and a majority of capital is still created by labor (though this won't be the case in the future). that's why labor is the primary 'input', especially as capital becomes more and more self-operating without need for constant attention from the worker.
>Meaning that no room to prediction is open,as it is alredy determined. If the community demands wheat,but you know that a plage may be hittimg wheat,which would make its production a waste and cause hunger,but the community ignores you and wants wheat,people would die for the lack of prediction due the rigidity of the system
i'll readily admit that my formulation here on how socialist economy should be run has some room to grow. surely though your hypothetical here can be solved with education of the workers. so long as there's sufficient information at all times telling workers of what may or may not occur- like a wheat plague- they can make decisions on what would be rational to produce with that information in mind, no?
>>1235410
Inventories, anon.
>>1235317
>Luxury products just debunk this,as the whole purpose of the product is quality.
even if the purpose is quality for many luxury products, the capitalist still has an interest in using the cheapest materials they can use (accounting for competition with other competitors included). the capitalist will always have an interest in lowering the cost of production as much as they possibly can, same with wages of their laborers. a luxury product is going to be LESS crappy than your typical product, yes, but it will still be using cheaper materials than it COULD be using.
i have no disagreements with your second point, it is true that you can find another provider, though i'll mention there's no guarantee in many cases that that provider doesn't use very similar low cost materials.
>Then you will need a goverment to kill all none socialist places which goes against the very pronciple of libertarianism
i have no illusions that the initial stage of communism will be a perfect freedom liberty land. i don't claim that communism will be espousing libertarianism perfectly until perhaps far later into its lifespan. i might have entered this topic under the guide of a libertarian, but i actually didn't intend to- i just wanted to respond to one guy's argument against communism, and here we are now.
>>1235425
Yeah I really want an inventory of dildos when the situation arrives. Maybe you could give me something that everyone agrees to use for trading? Cash perhaps?
>>1235454
Lower costs same product - good
Lower cost worse product - depends on whether the lower cost outweighs the loss of quality. If it doesn't I'll just buy the more expensive but better one.
>>1235467
What the hell are you talking about. I'm just saying that stock variation can be used instead of price variations as signals in a socialist economy.
>>1235373
>People's will is something arbitrary,which is the whole basis of your topic.
ar·bi·trar·y
adjective
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
people's desires can be random, i won't deny that. but the economic choices of individuals are anything but random. they're often informed by research, second opinions, and especially reason. people do not make economic choices without consulting their rationality in 90% of cases.
>Liberty:freedom from external or foreign rule; independence. Basically autonomy to the individual.
autonomy to the individual is difficult when some actions still HAVE to be done. i still stand by my thought that liberty is not to be enacted until human labor is no longer necessary.
>Because in socialism there would be no autonomy. All the decissions would rely on one single entity, that determines whether my ideas are bullshit or not,and doesnt allow me to fullfill them.
its not an 'entity', its a collection of individuals just like you who have their own wills. maybe the entity you're referring to is the worker council i've conjured up. going by your libeery definition, direct democracy would certainly be a better fit for liberty, since it allows the individual more autonomous control over their actions rather than trusting a representative. if you want a direct democracy, fine, and maybe you see the market as a form of direct democracy, but i do not. i might have my choice of products, but i don't have the choice of how these products or made, and i think allowing that is a better expression of liberty than capitalsm allows currently, assuming that liberty is an ideal we wish to strive for.
>>1235482
You might over produce but I'm talking about how you get individuals to move to the under produced industries. Sorry I misunderstood you thinking hat you would give them inventoried goods to get them to move.
Under capitalism too much stock ( due to a lack of demand)- losses are made, production is cut back, people fired.
Too little, people are employed by that company to make more. People are given the incentive to find those jobs as the wages go up. In the mean time they can be given unemployment benefits to get by or given a subsidy/grant to re-train.
That system works, why bother with only stocks?
>>1235534
The under produced industries are evident given the observed stock variations. In a society where work is not compulsory through the threat of starvation, workers can freely move to the industries that need higher production.
Regarding the last question, the change to a socialist system implies that the current system is not working as intended, although not necessarily in the efficiency of its signals.
>>1235380
i have to assume this ideal shoe doesn't exist in the market at the moment either because its impossible to create (we already have the most efficient shoes that we can produce with current materials and current known knowledge) or because attempts in the past to make a long lasting shoe have been less profitable than short lasting shoes for whatever reason. i don't have any knowledge on if the latter occurred nor do i know if the former is the case. i don't have a real argument against your statement that the present system is efficient (your did a fine job showing it), so i'm going to move on to your response to tragedy of the commons.
its not as if public property doesn't provide an incentive to fix the machine either. the incentive is that i personally won't be able to make my shoes the next time i go to the machine, nor will my neighbors.
this mindset works when you're not acquainted with the people who work the means of production and have no interest in their welfare. that doesn't have to be the case in socialist society. you can create a culture such that people see value in keeping the means of production constantly usable for the community, though it of course takes an effort. as you said, its harder to achieve than the private property justification for fixing the machine, but that doesn't mean its not worth trying.
its true leisure is more enticing to many than trying to create something entirely new, but that desire to create something new will still exist so long as humans have desires not yet satisfied.
its not the same product if its a lower cost. some qualitative difference had to occur for the product to be a lower cost- this could mean cheaper production materials, which is not advantageous for the consumer.
of course, there's also the possibility that something non production related changed- i found a cheaper transportation company. that would qualify as an objectively beneficial arrangement for the consumer.
>>1235390
>So if noone is interested on farming,as there are no incentive to it,food sortages could be huge,as society wouldnt be profit driven.
there is an incentive to farm- if you don't farm you won't have food. that's an incentive. farming is one of those things that HAS to be done, so it would be done, or else. again, i'm not saying that initial communist society would be a totally and completely free society. it won't be. but it will be a society that gives the individual more control over how society should organize its production and its government and so on.
>For that you would need miners to get Lithium. And as there is no profit for mining i doubt that anyone would be interested in such labour.
i have the same response to this as my above statement. no one wants to mine today either, especially not the worker. the worker works in the mine often because they have no other choice- they need money to live, and they don't have the opportunity to get schooling that would allow them a more cushy job. in capitalist society, that threat of starvation if i don't work is the main means that gets people to work shitty jobs. in socialist society, the punishment would still exist, though perhaps it would be less severe. who knows what form it would take.
>Yes,that is why the community should not determine other people actions.
fair point. there should be a balance though. each individual having complete control would lead to anarchy. some ground rules need to be had, which means surrendering some of my freedom to the society/collective.
>>1235599
Work still has to be done in a socialist society for a given level of output. People can live in a capitalist society without having to work without the threat of starvation.This is what unemployment benefits are for. But not everyone can. I'm not an ancap so don't assume there isn't a social safety net in my capitalist society.
>>1235609
I don't think we will ever come to a conclusion. I personally think that the chances that we could make a society such as the one you described are slim, however desirable it might be.
The product might have a lower cost but be the same if a more efficient production method was made ( think division of labour ) or a new source of the materials needed was found ( positive supply shock ).
>>1235651
Ancap or not, 90% of the people in the world are forced to work in order to survive. I didn't deny the need for work in a socialist society though.
>>1235684
i should mention i meant to organize my post like this
'
its not as if public property doesn't provide an incentive to fix the machine either. the incentive is that i personally won't be able to make my shoes the next time i go to the machine, nor will my neighbors.
>Then I think I'll let someone else fix the machine, but everyone is thinking the same thing.
this mindset works when you're not acquainted with the people who work the means of production and have no interest in their welfare. that doesn't have to be the case in socialist society. you can create a culture such that people see value in keeping the means of production constantly usable for the community, though it of course takes an effort. as you said, its harder to achieve than the private property justification for fixing the machine, but that doesn't mean its not worth trying.'
having that reference to the mindset you were proposing between those two paragraphs was important to create a cohesive post, but i ended up cutting the greentext because i have continuously gone over the character limit in this thread and have to cut corners in many cases. sorry if it was slightly incoherent.
>>1235629
I'm not the guy you are responding to btw.
Why bother farming if someone else will come and eat the food produced?
Just to note, capitalism doesn't necessarily imply starvation if you don't work. Unemployment benefits prevent this (and social insurance actually helps the capitalist system in the long run ). Also, but to a lesser extent, private charity.
>Schooling
For the poor the state can subsidise/pay for education. This again helps capitalism in the long run.
>>1235693
Most people could work much less and still survive. A lot of the extra work is done to pay for consumption.
For poorer countries a lot of the work reflects the lower technology level in those countries and governments which are more likely to prevent/siphon off wealth creation than to support it. Also not enough access to markets meaning that they can't divide their labour adequately.
>>1235710
>Why bother farming if someone else will come and eat the food produced?
because you have an interest in creating the goods necessary for your community to survive. the continued survival of your fellow workers means that those workers can continue their own jobs and you will get to enjoy the benefits of their labor so long as the community continues laboring.
socialist society would have a fundamentally different sort of culture compared to capitalism, in the same way that previous economic paradigms have had different cultures compared to their previous iterations, like feudalism to capitalism's cultural change.
>Just to note, capitalism doesn't necessarily imply starvation if you don't work. Unemployment benefits prevent this (and social insurance actually helps the capitalist system in the long run ). Also, but to a lesser extent, private charity.
i agree. you're right to call me on this. i support some sort of social safety net in socialism as well, though those who don't work shouldn't be able to receive the same amount of goods as those who do- there still must be some sort of differential between those who do and don't work, like the financial difference between those who do and do not work in capitalism.
>For the poor the state can subsidise/pay for education. This again helps capitalism in the long run.
the state doing this is a waste of resources though, because if everyone gains an education, not everyone will be able to use their education in the field of their choice- there will still be fieldwork to do and mining to be done, and there won't be enough job availability in the educated fields to account for everybody who now has an education. its true the state COULD subsidize schooling for everybody, but doing so means that some educations are straight up squandered because some educated people are left doing field work rather than something that takes advantage of their intellect.
>>1235735
Anon, most people live with less than a dollar per day, i'm pretty sure you're being really naive or generalizing your first work reality. Your assessment of the causes for underdevelopment is also pretty simplistic.
>>1235766
first world*
this is what i get for typing while on the phone
>>1235757
I'm not going to argue over the first point if the assumption is a completely different culture.
I wouldn't say state funded education for the poor would be a complete waste of resources. I'm not speaking about university degrees for all, mainly skills/trades but university degrees for those who are capable. Regarding the lack of skilled jobs, take for example a miner goes to learn about how to operate mining machines, a field worker how to operate a modern irrigation system, this won't always happen though. In a capitalist society there will always be some unemployment due to structural factors, but to say that there are no job opportunities for people if only they retrained would not be accurate.
>>1235808
yeah, fair enough.
>>1235629
>there is an incentive to farm- if you don't farm you won't have food. that's an incentive. farming is one of those things that HAS to be done, so it would be done, or else. again, i'm not saying that initial communist society would be a totally and completely free society. it won't be. but it will be a society that gives the individual more control over how society should organize its production and its government and so on.
But farming requires way more effort than any other labour. Why would anyone choose to be a farmer,when is harder job,and there is no profit to be made?
> i have the same response to this as my above statement. no one wants to mine today either, especially not the worker. the worker works in the mine often because they have no other choice- they need money to live, and they don't have the opportunity to get schooling that would allow them a more cushy job. in capitalist society, that threat of starvation if i don't work is the main means that gets people to work shitty jobs. in socialist society, the punishment would still exist, though perhaps it would be less severe. who knows what form it would take
You just admitted that you dont realy know how to put people into more work heavy works,without some kind of force. Not very libertarian if you ask me
>>1235757
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Harmony,_Indiana
Your models sounds good,but it has never worked. Read the Owen experiment part of this city,and see how it ended.
>>1236957
>Why would anyone choose to be a farmer,when is harder job,and there is no profit to be made?
no one would choose it, but it still needs to get done, so it would be done. every single farmer would rather be spending their time doing a more enjoyable pursuit, but the fact is that farming needs to be performed, and some sort of mechanism would have to be in place to make sure it is done.
force would be necessary.
>You just admitted that you dont realy know how to put people into more work heavy works,without some kind of force. Not very libertarian if you ask me
yeah, i won't pretend that it is libertarian. it's not. the world can't maximize liberty for humans until human labor is no longer necessary, ie automation occurs on a wide enough and comprehensive enough scale.
>>1236999
>force would be necessary.
Then it is not libertarian. You would even create a new slave force to do crappy jobs. That is way worse than waged labour.
> maximize liberty for humans until human labor is no longer necessary, ie automation occurs on a wide enough and comprehensive enough scale.
So you need technology that doesnt exist to make your system work. So what is the point of discussing it if it needs totaly automated machines to even start to work?
>>1237005
>Then it is not libertarian. You would even create a new slave force to do crappy jobs. That is way worse than waged labour.
i don't agree. it's not worse, since those who work on the farm are at least not having their surplus value taken from them by a capitalist. the products they create are completely theirs.
its not as if capitalist society doesn't have a similar sort of corralling low skill low education individuals into undesirable physical labor like mining or farming, as i've discussed previously. there have always been mechanisms to get people to perform undesirable labor. the only freedom we can have from doing undesirable labor is creating a society such that humans working on the field is no longer necessary.
to be precise, i don't really know what form the coercion would take that would motivate people to perform these undesirable jobs. i won't claim to know what it is.
>So you need technology that doesnt exist to make your system work. So what is the point of discussing it if it needs totaly automated machines to even start to work?
no, the system can work without automation, it just won't be libertarian. if liberty is your life's one true goal, then you should be attempting to expedite the automation revolution right now, because freedom from laboring is going to be the ultimate freedom for all of humanity.
communism as formulated by marx already idealizes a world where the labor that humans must perform is astronomically small. communism already assumes automation being sufficiently advanced. TRANSITIONING to communism doesn't necessitate this level of automation though, it could occur tomorrow if a sufficiently large group of people decided they desired it and had the will to enact a revolution.
>>1237029
>its not as if capitalist society doesn't have a similar sort of corralling low skill low education individuals into undesirable physical labor like mining or farming, as i've discussed previously. there have always been mechanisms to get people to perform undesirable labor
Yes, by paying them more. There is a reason that miners in my country are paid six-figures. It's cause you do long, sucky hours in the middle of nowhere.
>no, the system can work without automation, it just won't be libertarian.
And this statement is why I hate 'libertarian' socialists. They are not libertarian in the slightest. They just believe that socialism brings about libertarianism, as if it is a by-product of socialism.
>communism as formulated by marx already idealizes a world where the labor that humans must perform is astronomically small. communism already assumes automation being sufficiently advanced. TRANSITIONING to communism doesn't necessitate this level of automation though, it could occur tomorrow if a sufficiently large group of people decided they desired it and had the will to enact a revolution.
It's one thing to assume that post-scarcity can exist. It's another to say that workers seizing the means of production will lead to post-scarcity.
>>1237075
>There is a reason that miners in my country are paid six-figures
Chile?
>>1237075
>Yes, by paying them more. There is a reason that miners in my country are paid six-figures. It's cause you do long, sucky hours in the middle of nowhere.
if its this simple, we can give those who work undesirable jobs more access to their choice of goods. this accomplishes the same result as capitalism.
>And this statement is why I hate 'libertarian' socialists. They are not libertarian in the slightest. They just believe that socialism brings about libertarianism, as if it is a by-product of socialism.
i hope i've made it sufficiently clear that i don't claim to be a libertarian socialist. i should not be taken as a representative of that group.
>It's one thing to assume that post-scarcity can exist. It's another to say that workers seizing the means of production will lead to post-scarcity.
i don't think that communism supposes post-scarcity specifically. it only suppose that the means of production can be sufficiently automated such that humans no longer need to labor. communism does not assume post scarcity is a feature of it as far as i know.
>>1237103
Australia
>>1237122
>i hope i've made it sufficiently clear that i don't claim to be a libertarian socialist. i should not be taken as a representative of that group.
Good. You have some level of intelligence.
>if its this simple, we can give those who work undesirable jobs more access to their choice of goods. this accomplishes the same result as capitalism.
Why do you say 'we'? 'We' don't need to do anything, just allow for the natural fluctuation of prices.
And if we do this, don't 'we' just create a new class of rich people? What I guess I am saying is this; how come when an individual earns more money by working a shitty job in a capitalist society, it is seen as bad but when the same thing occurs in a socialist society, it is deemed good?
>it only suppose that the means of production can be sufficiently automated such that humans no longer need to labor.
Fair point that I will accept.
Thank you for posting for ages. I've just come in at the end but it is good to see long-form discussions on these topics, no matter which side you are on.
>>1237145
>And if we do this, don't 'we' just create a new class of rich people? What I guess I am saying is this; how come when an individual earns more money by working a shitty job in a capitalist society, it is seen as bad but when the same thing occurs in a socialist society, it is deemed good?
well, the difference between who is rich in a socialist society and who is rich in a capitalist society is astronomical, i would guess. during the transitionary phase there's likely to be some sort of currency that scales with labor. therefore, those who are rich in a socialist society during this phase will be rich because they work more than those who do not. those who are rich in a capitalist society (which i'll take as the top 1%, the people who are richer than everyone else by a large factor) are rich because they own means of production. those who are rich in a capitalist society do not work for their riches. they take value created by workers as their own by their right of property ownership.
personally, i don't see earning more money in a capitalist society as a negative thing in abstract. whether making more money is good or bad depends entirely on how you did it- are you rich because of other people's labor (the labor of your employees), or are you rich off of your own sweat and blood? i see nothing 'wrong' with the latter. i support riches gained through hard work, whatever form that may take. capitalists do not work hard enough for their share of society's value. that is my opinion.
if someone is rich in a socialist society its going to be because they work hard and provide the community with a lot of value. that's a good thing.
>
Thank you for posting for ages. I've just come in at the end but it is good to see long-form discussions on these topics, no matter which side you are on.
absolutely. i only wish there were more opportunities on 4chan to debate leftist ideas.
>>1237165
I'm not the guy who you are responding to but without the labour theory of value those judgements fall apart.
