Why is socialism better than libertarianism in practice?
>>262638
Because government works better than a mass of individuals with opposite interests
>>262674
Why?
>>262674
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>262638
Any society with instant food replicators and infinite energy sources is going to be successful regardless of government f@m
>>262638
Ever since the days of Jefferson lolbertarians have been shit on without fail. Their ideology has repeatedly been proven wrong yet they somehow think history proves them right. Yet somehow lefties are the utopians.
>>262750
Libertarians always predict the future correctly, at least in modern times.
Note that Star Trek is a post scarcity world were computers can magic things into being. Conflict still exists, although I doubt that society would function like it does in star trek, in reality if nobody had to work society would be nothing but fat, lazy, NEETs.
Mad Max's world is nothing but scarcity. Data shows however that reality is just the opposite, free market societies are capable of producing much more than inefficient planned economies.
>>262817
Yeah, totally, bro. "WALL-E" is the most accurate representation of what the technological future holds.
You've got some deep wisdom, dude.
>>262638
LOL TOP KEK
>>262817
>Data shows however that reality is just the opposite, free market societies are capable of producing much more than inefficient planned economies.
>I can produce shitty unlimited pop music, and it is a good thing
>>262638
more like a 3rd world shithole t.b..h. fa.m
see: sweden :^)
>>262638
Star Trek isn't socialist, they have infinite everything and don't have to tax their citizens.
>>262838
>my opinion is the only correct opinion
There's something for everyone in a free market. Socialism takes away the slight risk we trade for luxury and replaces it with a barebones but guaranteed existence.
>>262817
>in reality if nobody had to work society would be nothing but fat, lazy, NEETs.
This is some hardcore projection. Shows how narrow-minded the typical libertarian is. Just because you and most of the people you associate with(you family?) are like that doesn't really translate into reality. Many people enjoy physical activity and real sex with real people.
>>262674
/thread. The correct answer. A homogenous governing body is superior to an unorganized mass of individuals with conflicting interests.
>>262848
Free market societies are literally schizophrenic societies. We have a collective consciousness as a people/nation/etc.
Do you think having schizophrenia is healthy?
>>262638
meanwhile in reality, there are lines for bread in the few remaining socialist economies.
>>262842
>hurr how does Socialism work
>>262879
People are forced to do work in those societies, unlike in libertarian societies where you can make people your slaves in some way.
>>262850
Wasnt there some experiment with mice where they stopped reproducing when they were given the perfect environment
Oh, and even Star Treks writers admitted a money less society were people work simply to better themselves makes no fucking sense
>>262638
>socialism better than libertarianism
both of these fail in real life
socialism always spending other peoples $$
libertarianism gets overrun by criminals like prohibition in USA 1920s
>>262852
>>262856
I can respond to both of these at once.
We are not ants or bees or termites, and for most of us the perfect system is not the one that sacrifices our individuality to create the most efficient society. Freedom has its costs, and it's tempting to restrict it further and further in order to cut out the argument, the hatred, the constant tug-of-war that on the surface appears to only hold societies back from what a certain group of people might call "progress."
You might see no problem here. If so, then by all means stop reading, because you and I have a fundamental difference in worldview, and there's nothing I can do to change your mind. But all those societies that now seem to be held back by factionalism and endless debate were founded a long time ago, by people who took their destiny into their own hands and created something new and better. If you repress basic human individuality you will leave no room for improvement beyond small changes to make the system more efficient. A thousand years later the system will be just as stable, but exactly the same.
If you kill the disparate elements of society, you are trading that society's soul for a bit of security. I'm sure to some this seems acceptable, but you should never be surprised if many people disagree.
>>262674
No, it really doesn't.
>>262750
How has it repeatedly been proven wrong?
>>262904
>prohibition
>libertarianism
uwot?
Also, crime is not inherently wrong, it's simply something the ruling elite doesn't want. While the mobsters were violent, it was because if they were caught they'd be fucked up. Now that alcohol is legal you don't need to resort to violence to make a business out of it.
libertarianism and socialism are the same thing tbqhwy
>>262919
>to only hold societies back from what a certain group of people might call "progress."
Why isn't stopping violence, abuse, hunger, lack of education, and low physical health progress?
Is it really so hard to have individualism as well as care about the well-being of your neighbor as well? Your neighbor is part of your country. When you help your neighbor you help yourself.
>>262935
>Why isn't stopping violence, abuse, hunger, lack of education, and low physical health progress?
Why is it that a subset of individuals (those involved in government) have the right to decide how that's done?
Anyway that's beside the point. I was responding the assertion that a homogeneous governing body is superior to many disagreeing elements, which I believe to be false.
>>262935
Not when caring for your neighbor involves surrendering your rights for the sake of the common good, nor has surrendering your rights ever brought an end to all of those things, in fact more often than not it has resulted in more of those things.
>collectivism
>2015
Socialism has been so thoroughly discredited that only an intellectual could still believe in it
>>262960
I like what this anon once posted.
>>262928
Lelwut.jpg They are opposites.
>>262967
nice impression of a meme master who doesn't know anything about socialism or libertarianism
>>262964
socialism is just social justice parsed through the lens of economics
>>262975
Libertarianism wishes to reduce government control over the market.
Socialism wishes to decrease government control over the market.
Libertarianism supports free market economy.
Socialism supports mixed economy.
>same
>>262990
>Libertarianism wishes to reduce government control over the market.
>Socialism wishes to decrease government control over the market.
Reduce and decrease are the same thing my man, but markets are bad for both liberty and society.
>>262990
Fuck, meant increase, not decrease
>>262996
>>262997
How humiliating.
>>263001
Mea maxima culpa, domine. But now please tell me how they are the same system if they have pretty much opposite economic ideas.
>>262996
>but markets are bad for both liberty and society.
Yes, fuck being able to buy things.
>>263005
exactly man, it's literally L I T E R A L L Y in the word "free"
>>263003
Not him, I'll leave him to do it, but from the pic he posted I assume he adheres to some anarchist variant that defines libertarianism in leftist terms.
>>262947
You have more freedom in a communist society than a class-based libertarian one.
>>262831
>implying it isn't
First we let the queers marry, next the robots will be asking for equal rights and unions
>>262996
Markets are simply a representation of the current human desires. By eliminating markets you haven't fixed anything, just brushed it under the rug. Not that you can eliminate markets in the first place.
>>263008
Oh yes, fuck being able to decide what to buy, thus makeing sure that the superior product wins. Competition is bad man, corporations should work together to squeeze the money out of us better.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
>>263017
>class-based libertarian
What the fucking fuck is wrong with you guys.
>>262638
>>263024
Well, free market needs corporation owners. Otherwise known as the rich class. And it also needs workers, also known as poor/middle class.
>>263023
>social change is literally impossible
I knew capitalists were meme masters, but I wasn't expecting this!
>>263024
>Oh yes, fuck being able to decide what to buy, thus makeing sure that the superior product wins. Competition is bad man, corporations should work together to squeeze the money out of us better.
>I have no idea what you are talking about.
I literally never mentioned corprations, if you don't have underpants for a brain you'd know that if markets were abolished and we got things for F R E E there wouldn't be corporations or money.
>>263030
>Well, free market needs corporation owners
>>263024
There isn't equality in a libertarian society. Therefore there are classes, and the lower class is left to suffer and rot while the higher classes benefit from stepping on their backs.
Libertarianism is an ideology whose core component is literally slavery.
In a libertarian society, people are enslaved and it is looked on as a price to pay for giving others more freedom. It's unequal, and selfish, and will always, one hundred percent end in complete corruption and loss of freedoms for even those like you who may benefit from it at first.
>>263044
>working for other people voluntarily
>slavery
>have ability to learn skills and sell own services
>"UH NO U CANT U HAV 2 WORK 4 SLAEV MASTERZ SELLING YOUR OWN SERVICES IS A LIE"
Kill yourself.
>>263030
You do know there are market socialists and anarchists, right?
>>263037
>I knew capitalists were meme masters, but I wasn't expecting this!
I'm not a capitalist and my point was that the focus needed to be on social change, not removing markets since markets simply represent the society.
>I literally never mentioned corprations, if you don't have underpants for a brain you'd know that if markets were abolished and we got things for F R E E there wouldn't be corporations or money.
And what is the replace markets? A nice planned economy where the big men at the top kill thousands because their projections didn't work?
>>263044
And I'm sure the alternative of Big Brother who makes sure that everyone is equal by executing dissents and robbing the workers will definitely work.
>>263037
How in the fuck do you expect to get things for free? Someone needs to produce the goods so they could be consumed => labour is necessary. Since a necessary service to the society, it needs to be rewarded, hence wages. And since material goods require a certain amount of labour and raw materials, they have value, hence prices. And if you work, you can buy them with wages. How in the fuck would you organize society without money? The only way you could do that is by rationing everything to the working populace. And that is horribly impractical and ineffective, it is better to simply pay them and let them buy what they need.
>>263030
ever heard if buying stock?
the wonder of the capital markets is that you to can own stock in a company
>>263017
Why do weeb ideologues love k-on? I've seen so many fucking stormfags and communists who avatarfag or make cringeworthy images of this shit.
>>263030
And what about small shop owners? Where do they fit in your arbitary system that reality doesn't adhere to?
I didn't know that we live in a caste-system that decides what class I will be born in.
>>263037
>that if markets were abolished and we got things for F R E E
No, if we abolish the markets we wouldn't have shit, because things don't magically appear just because you wish they would.
>>263044
See my above. No, a libertarian society is not equal. Which is great, because humans aren't equal. But libertarian societies offer the best social mobility, giving your the chance to succeed because of luck or determination.
>>263050
>You do know there are market socialists and anarchists, right?
senpai this is the R E A L contradiction
>I'm not a capitalist and my point was that the focus needed to be on social change, not removing markets since markets simply represent the society.
removing the markets is actually a part of the social change
>And what is the replace markets? A nice planned economy where the big men at the top kill thousands because their projections didn't work?
a collectivised, directly democratic economy built on mutual aid, equality and freedom
>>263065
>removing the markets is actually a part of the social change
Yeah, one where you violently prevent people to freely associate at gunpoint.
Sounds REAL nice brah.
>>263044
>willingly selling your services to someone with more money
>slavery
There will always be inequality, and nothing you do can change that. If you institute socialism it'll just be a different group of people at the top.
>>263063
*adhere to reality
I'm getting upset here, can't write for shit.
>>263057
you run the workplace collectively, and you decide as a collective how wages are paid, all the surplus (and eventually everything) is F R E E
>>263037
>talking about the alocation of scarce resources
>getting stuff for FREE
do you even understand the very basics of economy?
and if you still belive in your own words. Can I get some of your stuff for free?
>>263066
>you violently prevent people to freely associate at gunpoint
literally capitalism
>>263071
>resources are scarce
>>263072
cap·i·tal·ism
ˈkapədlˌizəm/
noun
noun: capitalism
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state
OWNING THINGS IS VIOLENCE! HEIL MARX!
>>263063
>No, if we abolish the markets we wouldn't have shit, because things don't magically appear just because you wish they would.
you produce things collectively, innovation in capitalism is a spicy meme
>>262840
why the fuck does everyone conflate social democracy and socialism?
>>263076
Economics 101 resource are scarce in comparison to wants
>>263079
If somebody needs food, there's the opportunity to give them food without compromising anybody else's need for food and you're using the state/private guards or something to keep them from getting food you're not the good guys senpai
>>263065
>a collectivised, directly democratic economy built on mutual aid, equality and freedom
And what stops 50+1% of the populations fucking over everyone else?
>>263085
>wants are static and can't be changed at all
>>263086
Helping others =/= stealing from people for whatever reason.
If somebody doesn't want to give their shit to people, that doesn't mean it's ok for you to *VIOLENTLY TAKE IT FROM THEM*.
>>263087
I never said it would be based on a majority vote, IMO that's not even democracy. There needs to be a dialogue and proper, equal conversation between people for there to be a truly free society
>>263091
you need now to be able to tell me why your claim to owning that food is more important than the claim of the person who needs it and you also need to tell me why that claim justifies the use of coercive force
>>262960
I dunno what conspiracy theorist universe you live in, but communism has been out of fashion with intellectuals for quite some time.
>muh small town wisdom will trump those academic marxist boogeymen
>>263100
>you need now to be able to tell me why your claim to owning that food is more important than the claim of the person who needs it
No I don't, I just need to state that stealing is *fucking wrong* and that you don't return evil with evil.
"Coercive force" is something only an aggressor can engage in. If a farmer owns a grain stock that he's keeping over the winter for his family, and a mob comes and tries to steal it all because they're hungry, THEY'RE coercive and anything he does to prevent the theft is self-defense.
Fucking collectivist immoral SCUM.
>>263089
>no guy we have infenate lead ore
>god gave me this really cool hack
>its called semi-autointhemouthdoitfaggot
>>263112
Again, to claim that stealing is wrong you need to be able to justify the person who owned the thing's ownership of the thing. How is having armies, police forces and private security dudes always on the standby N O T being an aggressor? Also the grain thing is a huge strawman
>>263124
>"I don't know what the word strawman means!"
>>263116
lmao dude what the fuck are you saying
>>263067
It's slavery when you're doing it to survive. If people were all provided basic needs of food and shelter then perhaps it wouldn't be.
>>263134
>It's slavery when you're doing it to survive
No it fucking isn't. No one owes you *ANYTHING*. Instead of working for someone else, do what humans have done for most of history and hunt and gather. No one's stopping you.
>>262674
>Because government works better than a mass of individuals with opposite interests
Yeah, I mean just compare the USA to Pol Pot's Cambodia.
Fucking idiot
>>263128
it's a fake argument that I didn't actually say
>>263145
>it's a fake argument that I didn't actually say
From two posts back
>you need now to be able to tell me why your claim to owning that food is more important than the claim of the person who needs it
The average redditor, ladies and gentlemen.
>>263145
>"I *REALLY* don't know what strawman means! I'm probably a fucking retard who breathes through his mouth and posts shit on the internet about things I know *NOTHING*!"
>>263134
I see the problem here. You're delusional if you don't think you should have to work for anyone else to survive. For all of human history, some people have had things that other people needed. It is completely just for those people to ask for compensation if they are going to give them up.
What is not just is to forcibly take those things because you've decided that everyone has an unalienable right to exist, regardless of their worth to society.
WE ARE ALL OWED NOTHING
>>263159
HEIL MARX! MORALITY IS FOR THE UPPER CLASS! DOWN WITH OWNERSHIP!
>>263161
I don't even like marx so that's another #strawman right there
>>263159
>If he has surplus grain there's no reason why he shouldn't share it though.
How about "keeping it to invest it later" you fucking moron?
Jesus fuck I want underage redditors to leave.
>oh hey I have 100$. I can save it if I ever need it later, or I can give it to the hobo down the street who will spend it on crack cocaine
And you wonder why nobody takes you commies seriously.
>>263165
>investing things in a hypothetical situation where there isn't a market economy
baka
>>263164
I'm not making an argument - I'm mocking you because you're immoral scum who thinks it's ok to subjugate people if they have something you want.
Is your name Abdul? Jamal?
>>263171
Please explain how you're supposed to grow an economy without investment, even in the case that there is no market.
>>263065
>senpai this is the R E A L contradiction
There is no contradiction. Just because the market takes away freedom doesn't mean it can be disposed with anymore then gravity can be.
>removing the markets is actually a part of the social change
How does removing the market suddenly change humanity?
>a collectivised, directly democratic economy built on mutual aid, equality and freedom
You said nothing of substance. What does any of that really mean in practice?
>>263151
Stop shitposting Praceteom, you're lowering the quality of discussion.
>>263159
How does this system of property rights work? If ownership does not come from labor but simply exists in a state of need, then how do you determine when people need something? Additionally, if the surplus doesn't belong to the producer, why would he bother creating surplus if he gains nothing from it? Of course he could just be charitable, but that's assuming that everyone will be willing to be charitable.
>>263173
Nice bad faith m80.
>>263179
Nice shitpost m8.
>>263181
>anarchist
>crypto-fascist
LMAO
>>263131
That you don't get what scarcity means.
And that you should probably off yourself.
>>263181
>>muh growth in no discernible or logical direction
How can growth happen in an "illogical direction" when the free market is left to operate?
The only instances I can think of economic disasters which originated from wanting growth in an illogical direction happened in communist countries. Take Krushchev's retarded corn campaign, which ruined the russian countryside. Turns out that the "disorganized, conflicting" peasantry has a better idea of how and what to farm than some jewish komissar working in a Moscow office.
>>263193
OH YOU'RE ONE OF *THESE*
>>263193
Giving anarchists a bad name?
I don't think you guys could go any lower desu senpai
>>263179
>There is no contradiction
what's the actual difference between a state army and a private one?
>If ownership does not come from labor but simply exists in a state of need
there isn't ownership, the closest thing to ownership is the control that producers have over what they produce, this is about morals
>How does removing the market suddenly change humanity?
I said it's a PART of the change
>What does any of that really mean in practice?
exactly what I said, that's the ideal and all political or social action needs an ideal as a foundation
>>263050
>And I'm sure the alternative of Big Brother who makes sure that everyone is equal by executing dissents and robbing the workers will definitely work.
We get to make sure everyone is equal too, including Big Brother.
>>263194
>jewish conspiracies
didn't read bye
>>263187
what's the real difference between a private army and a state-owned one?
>>263208
Where did I allude to jewish conspiracies?
>didn't read
I figured you lacked the brainpower. Stupid commie.
>>263209
You don't steal from people within some arbitrary geographic area, calling it "tax", to fund a private army.
>>263214
nobody can comprehend your genius views, that's why you don't have a girlfriend
>>263215
the wealth is still coming from the same place, and that place is still the WORK from the WORKERS
>>263195
No, I just think you're shitposting.
>>263197
Ebin XDDD
>>263202
>what's the actual difference between a state army and a private one?
I don't see how that relates to the market.
>there isn't ownership, the closest thing to ownership is the control that producers have over what they produce, this is about morals
Okay, you can talk about morals all you want, but you're not giving a concrete plan for a new society.
>I said it's a PART of the change
How does it change the behavior of humans?
>exactly what I said, that's the ideal and all political or social action needs an ideal as a foundation
The world doesn't work by ideals. I'm asking for specifics.
>>263205
But Big Brother decides who is and isn't equal. Hmm, are you perchance are you committing thoughtcrime by asserting that Big Brother could ever be unequal?
>>263222
It's coming voluntarily. When people buy goods and services, they choose to do so - they don't have their resources forcibly stolen from them without agreement.
When you buy bananas at Wal-Mart, you contribute to the owners of Wal-Mart of your own free volition without any coercion whatsoever.
>>263229
And I think you're a leftist idiot. Woo!
>>263229
>I don't see how that relates to the market.
it doesn't really, ancaps aren't anarchists
>Okay, you can talk about morals all you want, but you're not giving a concrete plan for a new society.
one or two people planning out everything themselves (and the resulting famine) is what we want to AVOID
>How does it change the behavior of humans?
it's one of many results of some kind of social revolution
>The world doesn't work by ideals. I'm asking for specifics.
Ideals are the foundation for all specifics
>>263233
And I think you don't really care about an exchange of ideas or finding the truth. I think you just want to argue to fuel your ego.
>>263230
I hope you realise with all your rhetoric about pragmatism and being realistic that you can't actually do something that you don't have the option to do
>>263238
I like exchanging ideas and truth-searching. But you're certainly not doing that - you're shitposting on 4chan.
>Ebin XDDD
>>263240
I'm not a pragmatist in the slightest. All of my arguments are moral ones.
>>263246
then you're fucking retarded
>>263248
Great discussion.
>>263253
thanks b glad to help
>>263237
>it doesn't really, ancaps aren't anarchists
Market anarchists aren't ancaps.
>one or two people planning out everything themselves (and the resulting famine) is what we want to AVOID
Yes, that's true, but something more than vague ideals would be nice. If you can't give any because you're not sure, that's fine, just say so.
>it's one of many results of some kind of social revolution
Okay, it might be the result, but you're saying it's a prerequisite.
>Ideals are the foundation for all specifics
Yes, and you've given the ideals, now I'm asking for the specifics.
>>263242
Statements without substance deserves replies without substance. I'm only continuing to argue with you because I believe you're not completely devoted to shitposting.
>>263184
>Admit that you just want the government to pay for your NEET ways and haven't actually read anything on the subject.
If we had communism I wouldn't be a NEET, I would be able to become something that I have the desire to be.
>>263218
Wow, that's some real high level discourse
What's next, you're gonna say "ur dumb"?
Why are all the socialists on this tread to stupid to understand basic economics?
It's almost like they don't want to understand it because it undermines their pet belief.
>>263260
>Statements without substance deserves replies without substance
And you blame me for posting random images in response to idiots when you do exactly the same? Go fuck yourself senpai. I'm baka desu.
>>263269
The difference is you're not assuming good faith and lowering the possible value of the discussion.
>>263260
>Market anarchists aren't ancaps.
I thought you meant ancaps and not mutualists or whatever
>Yes, that's true, but something more than vague ideals would be nice. If you can't give any because you're not sure, that's fine, just say so.
I don't have a full set out plan for everything, I just know that people should work together to control their shit instead of some kind of hegemony. Farmers are the authorities on farming and so on.
>Okay, it might be the result, but you're saying it's a prerequisite.
did I?
>Yes, and you've given the ideals, now I'm asking for the specifics.
I don't know everyhting senpai
>>263274
>The difference is you're not assuming good faith
If someone's actually speaking in good faith then they wouldn't meme. They'd adjust their tone and be polite. I like memes, so I honestly couldn't care less if someone wants to shitpost. I have conversations with people until they blatantly say stupid shit, and then I mock them.
It's the same shit everyone does - I couldn't care less if it bothers you or not.
>>262638
>socialism
>works
yeah... sweden sure is great, killing itself and all
>>262674
An important distinction we need to make here is that an essential component to government is law. Government is still a mass of individuals with opposing interests, they just reach a consensus because they have power inside tradition and the political process (sort of the same thing, but).
A mass of individuals can still reach a consensus on conflicting issues. Further, we don't have the hierarchy that government creates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUig0lFHDDw
The flaws in establishing these alt models of society isnt within the philosophies and practices themselves, it's within capitalism and other forces in opposition trying to rear it's head into shit again. It's BECAUSE of structures like government desiring for power, and not enough people fighting against these forces, socialism/anarchism can't function. Workers self-management is in itself very effective, as seen in the video.
>>263070
How do you decide what to produce
>>263279
>I don't have a full set out plan for everything, I just know that people should work together to control their shit instead of some kind of hegemony. Farmers are the authorities on farming and so on.
That still doesn't explain why people would do more work for no gain. Once the farmer is already fed by his crops, why would he make more just for other people? If it's charity-based, then it won't function on a large scale, if it's based on some kind of obligation, i.e, if he doesn't give his surplus he won't receive fuel, then you've basically created a barter economy which isn't far off from a market.
>did I?
Seems like you did.
>I don't know everyhting senpai
That's fine senfam. Ideals are nice, but if they can't work in practice they need to be reworked.
>>263281
Just because someone memes doesn't mean they're shitposting. If they're saying nothing of substance and aren't trying to have a genuine discussion, then they're shitposting.
>>263290
sweden is not a socialist country. Its a capitalist country with high taxes and high social services.
It's economy is actually more free compared to us of a. Ayn Rand Institute researched and proposed that it is easy to start a business in sweden than in usa
>>263300
democratically
>>263308
Are you going to vote on EVERYTHING?
That sounds incredibly inefficient
>>263301
It also doesn't mean they deserve to be taken seriously/not be meme'd in return.
If you haven't noticed, I respond with actual ideas in the midst of the memes unless I'm responding to something absolutely substanceless like "you're retarded".
No one deserves respect.
>>263301
>That still doesn't explain why people would do more work for no gain
I reckon people don't work for money, they work for what they buy with the money. The more people put into a socialist system like that, the more they get out and also the more other people get out, and helping other people would add to the motivation too. The situation with the farmer is like what happened in Spain, where you could live on your own and support yourself, trading the rest with the collectives. It's different from a market in the sense that the farmer's goods go straight into the collective, also, going off what happened in Spain he can only employ other family members.
>Seems like you did.
I don't remember to well, but if I did I was wrong and now it's a part of the social revolution
no difference between anarcho liberalism and neckbeard leddit communism TBQH FA.M
>>263080
>you produce things collectively, innovation in capitalism is a spicy meme
This. Communism is freedom.
>>263311
it's not necessarily a vote, it's a dialogue in the work place. If you need to make a big decision with confederated workplaces you can use delegation.
>>262920
>it was because if they were caught they'd be fucked up.
This what what libertarians actually believe.
Lolbertardism is literally a mental disorder
>>263311
I would say a good model would be to provide the necessary basics already being sold profusely in the current market, gather a quota of how populous the area is, and produce accordingly. Say, the population is comprised of 500 infants, 600 small children, 1200 adults, 800 elderly... you gather a consensus on various questions like "how much would you say you typically eat in a day?" and then total this, compare with the market amounts, average it all out, and produce. maybe over-produce a little so there is no shortage.
Maybe produce monthly... first month on what we think will go out in a month, see what actually goes, and adjust everything accordingly.
>>263320
I'm still not seeing why markets are bad or why someone would create a surplus without some time of incentive. In a market economy there could still be Communist communes, but a market economy is the only thing that could work universally and not have a cutoff point where it doesn't function anymore.
>>263332
>being sent to prison or getting shot up if you resist isn't getting fucked up
Think before you shitpost senpai.
>>263323
>Communism is freedom.
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
>>263350
I think markets are bad because a market doesn't set out to meet human needs first and foremost, it uses violence to protect property rights and also makes things less efficient by using profit as the main motive instead of setting out to do something and doing it as well as you can. In Spain surplus existed mainly because of the efficiency of the collectives, I believe people would have more motivation to work when work gets things done as well as possible. There can't really be communes used to the extent that they should be in capitalism because of private ownership.
>>263350
>being sent to prison or getting shot up if you resist isn't getting fucked up
That's not what I was implying.
>>263358
Orwell was a socialist with anarchist sympathies
REMINDER.
>>263367
and even he could see that communism was fucked
>>263363
Violence doesn't need to be used to protect property rights nor do I think it should be. In an ideal society people will freely associate and in the cases of thievery a sort of community court would be set up to determine the validity of the case and what should be done. If the person is determined to be a thief and he didn't have a good reason to steal then the court could announce it to the community and people would then decide if they want to associate with a thief or not, or to associate with someone who associates with a thief. This would non-violently protect property rights.
I don't think profit is a poor motivation, nor does it need to be the sole one in a market economy. There's no reason why someone could've join a commune like your ideal society. The main thing preventing the formation of communes is land ownership, which would change radically in a stateless society. Almost no one would agree that some guy owns 100 acres of completely undeveloped forest which he has never stepped foot on just because there's a sign nearby saying he does.
>>263364
That's what I meant.
>>263363
>less efficient by using profit as the main motive
This is where you fucked up. Someone wants money, so he has to sell stuff. He gets more money when he sells stuff people like. Suddenly another appears that sells the same stuff. Now what? To satisfy his oh so bad greed, he has to offer an even better product, better service, faster supply, whatever.
Whatever it is that we are talking about here, be it bread, cars, computers, it's the people that are the winners, when greedy people have to compete and serve the customers.
Of course all this falls apart when the greedy people let the government jump in and help them to kill competition. But no libertarian argues for this.
>>263395
but what's the point of having the private ownership instead of collectives?
>This is where you fucked up. Someone wants money, so he has to sell stuff. He gets more money when he sells stuff people like. Suddenly another appears that sells the same stuff. Now what? To satisfy his oh so bad greed, he has to offer an even better product, better service, faster supply, whatever.
>Whatever it is that we are talking about here, be it bread, cars, computers, it's the people that are the winners, when greedy people have to compete and serve the customers.
>Of course all this falls apart when the greedy people let the government jump in and help them to kill competition. But no libertarian argues for this.
but he doesn't want the money on its own, right? he wants what he's going to buy
in that situation, why can't people just collaborate to get a job done with as little work as possible to produce the best result?
>>263388
*Stalinism
He fought with commies, you know
>>263412
>He fought with commies, you know
In his wild youth.
He became disillusioned with communism in his later life.
>>263411
>but what's the point of having the private ownership instead of collectives?
There doesn't have to be, some people can go to communes where everything is shared, but some would just prefer to do their own thing and have their own possessions without sharing.
>but he doesn't want the money on its own, right? he wants what he's going to buy
in that situation, why can't people just collaborate to get a job done with as little work as possible to produce the best result?
They could, but there has to be some incentive beyond goodwill for it to work on a wide scale.
>>263411
Because they will not produce the best result. The amount of information and coordination you need for that is beyond human ability.
It could somehow work with a small community, but you will not get beyond agrarian levels. Say goodbye to the pc you are using right now to communicate with me!
>>263426
>There doesn't have to be, some people can go to communes where everything is shared, but some would just prefer to do their own thing and have their own possessions without sharing.
That's like what I said with the farmer who trades with the collectives, but beyond supporting yourself like that I can't think of a justification for property.
>They could, but there has to be some incentive beyond goodwill for it to work on a wide scale.
But the incentive in both cases is the actual thing or living standard or whatever, not the money in and of itself.
>Because they will not produce the best result. The amount of information and coordination you need for that is beyond human ability.
that's why you socialise it and do it with many humans
>It could somehow work with a small community, but you will not get beyond agrarian levels.
Why not? This kind of thing has worked with millions of people in the past, like I was talking about in Spain.
>>263437
Here is something that deals with this information problem and that can explain that better than me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkPGfTEZ_r4
I also doubt that industrial output of your mythical spain was so great.
>>263437
>That's like what I said with the farmer who trades with the collectives, but beyond supporting yourself like that I can't think of a justification for property.
The simple justification of "I made it, I keep it; if I can't keep it, I won't make it." You could bring up a starving person or something, but then you'd have to say humans have a obligation to help others if they can, so a starving person can morally steal food. But then that argument can spin out of control with squads of people showing up and stealing food to redistribute it, and then that point the farmer will stop creating surplus because he keeps getting taken from him.
>But the incentive in both cases is the actual thing or living standard or whatever, not the money in and of itself.
Money is basically a physical representation of wealth, it's useful because no one is going to argue a dollar is worth a dollar. Sure you can cut out the middleman of money on the small scale, but the large scale needs it because it requires nothing more than itself.
>>263455
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkPGfTEZ_r4 [Embed]
I've only seen a little bit of that video so far, but it seems to be about centralisation, which I'm arguing against.
>I also doubt that industrial output of your mythical spain was so great.
Here's a video on that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPl_Y3Qdb7Y
We need to remove "humanities".
>>263468
>The simple justification of "I made it, I keep it; if I can't keep it, I won't make it
that's my view on why there should be worker control
in my opinion a starving person can morally steal food if violence is being used to stop him from eating, but that doesn't make him getting fed more important than another person. If the farmer's producing things in a collective, he directly benefits from producing more as well.
>Money is basically a physical representation of wealth, it's useful because no one is going to argue a dollar is worth a dollar. Sure you can cut out the middleman of money on the small scale, but the large scale needs it because it requires nothing more than itself.
the problem with money isn't necessarily that it's a representation of labour or value, but that it's seperated from it.
>>263470
It's about the knowledge problem that every kind of planned economy faces. However your special snowflake socialist society works, if it hasn't prices and an at least somewhat free market in which people decide what to buy for their own sake and what to produce for their own profit, it will have those problems.
And sorry, but I will not sit through one and a half hour of propaganda to learn how many cars anarchist spain build. Direct me to the scene or give me some unbiased graphs or whatever.
>>263484
>in my opinion a starving person can morally steal food if violence is being used to stop him from eating, but that doesn't make him getting fed more important than another person. If the farmer's producing things in a collective, he directly benefits from producing more as well.
If the starving person has the right to do it, then another person has the right to do it on his behalf. This leads to the problem of forced redistribution and people not wanting to create a surplus because they gain nothing from it. And how would violence be used to stop him from eating?
>the problem with money isn't necessarily that it's a representation of labour or value, but that it's seperated from it.
That's true when it's manipulated, but when it's not the price of things will accurately represent its value and the value of the labor put into it.
>>263468
>anachism is good guys
>anarchism is way better then those old ways of doing things
>gets curb stomped by nationalist, Chatolics, and faschists
>>263501
>It's about the knowledge problem that every kind of planned economy faces. However your special snowflake socialist society works, if it hasn't prices and an at least somewhat free market in which people decide what to buy for their own sake and what to produce for their own profit, it will have those problems.
the video talks about "to do such and such about farming you need to know what the farmers know." this is obviously not a problem that would exist if farmers controlled farming.
>And sorry, but I will not sit through one and a half hour of propaganda to learn how many cars anarchist spain build. Direct me to the scene or give me some unbiased graphs or whatever.
the whole story's really important though, you can google it if you just want stats
>>263507
You can be the best boxer in the world but if you're fighting 3 boxers at once you're going to lose.
>>263503
>If the starving person has the right to do it, then another person has the right to do it on his behalf
in the anarchist society we're talking about though, that situation wouldn't exist because of the collectivised economy.
>>263507
>>gets curb stomped by nationalist, Chatolics, and faschists
who had a standing army and weren't a fucking trade union
if you want an example of an anarchist army, look up Nestor Makhno
>>263529
>in the anarchist society we're talking about though, that situation wouldn't exist because of the collectivised economy.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
>>262964
>Guy goes through listing all of his personal strawmen about what "public ownership of production" actually means
>Instead of actually analyzing various schools of socialist thought
>He's right! He's right! OMG I weep with him!
>>263538
>I'm not sure what you mean by this.
If collectives are established and there's a mass social movement, people looking to exploit others would just be ignored.
>>263557
Yes, that's true, but private ownership isn't necessarily exploitation.
>>263455
That entire video is so fucking bunk.
This pleads so heavily to ignorance.
The workers know more than the fucking sales department. The alternative does not FIX the knowledge problem they propose, either. This is so fucking stupid.
>>263574
I disagree, but I probably won't convince you.
>>263583
None of those were arguments. Why would workers who might only know how to do their job know who to properly use resources that they have no knowledge with? How does pricing not fix the problem?
>>263584
Who is being exploited when a farmer keeps his surplus crops? It's not a zero-sum game, people aren't losing anything just because he isn't giving.
>>263594
>Who is being exploited when a farmer keeps his surplus crops? It's not a zero-sum game, people aren't losing anything just because he isn't giving.
Nobody's being exploited there, really. It's just a huge waste and not on very good moral ground when that surplus could have been used to feed others. Exploitation happens for example when you employ somebody to work for you, and even though they did the work, you keep the fruits of their labour for yourself, this type of arrangement usually also involves some kind of violent entity.
>>263584
>every thing is exploitation
>but me stealing the produce you made because "I need it more" is not exploitation at all
>>263521
>>263529
If you ideology is so fucking balls of the walls superior it should be able to stand up for it self.
You are literally "hitler din do nuffin wrong" their in your apology for a failed ideology
at least the ano caps can grasp basic economis You lot are just retards that read to much books for your own wellbeing
>>263615
You're silly. Little secessionist states get curbstomped all the time, no matter their ideology.
>>263605
>and even though they did the work, you keep the fruits of their labour for you
Call me lazy, but I love it when someone already created something like this for me to use.
>>263615
of course you know an ideology is shit when it can't magic up a trained and supplied army out of nowhere, yours can and that makes you smarter than me
>>263605
I see.
Anyway, I'm going to bed. It was great talking to you senpai.
Socialism: People wait in line for bread
Capitalism: Bread waits for people at stores
>>263629
you too man
>>263609
You admit that for society to advance you admit that we need people to quite literally exploit the masses so that they can have the time, resources and luxury to advance mankind?
Or do you argue that by implementing a workers paradise everyone will have the time, resources and luxury to advance mankind. Because if you are you need to start reading physics 101 to understand how matter and time works and how you can not create something from nothing.
>>263626
This picture is gay and stupid. The additional work it mentions is done by sales, R&D, and execs, who are all workers just as much as the guy on the assembly line.
Even counting them, the portion of profits that goes to capital is now higher than the one that goes to workers.
>>263639
People starve oh no
>>263640
>You admit that for society to advance you admit that we need people to quite literally exploit the masses so that they can have the time, resources and luxury to advance mankind?
It was necessary yes.
>Because if you are you need to start reading physics 101 to understand how matter and time works and how you can not create something from nothing.
Mmmmmh, if only we had a way to make energy other than just raw human muscle.
>>263648
>The additional work it mentions is done by sales, R&D, and execs, who are all workers just as much as the guy on the assembly line.
Well then, why don't they form their own corporations? No one is stopping them.
>>263626
Every action results in reciprocity.
>>263628
but if your ideology is superior why can't it usurp the enemies fighting men? Or is it perhaps that anarchy fails to form fighting men, organize them and give them a hold on in times of war. That it's internal bickering prevents any kind of a command structure worth a damn. That logistics fall apart due to failing economic doctrine.
>>263623
if I'm not mistaken the anarchists where the remnants of the socialist government of Spain.
A government that failed because the anarchists and other far left elements provided both the pretext and instability to facilitate the coup. Oh and their military incompetence meant that they couldn't even hold terrain ideal for defense against a bunch of mediocre at best generals.
>>263082
Because American (and most European desu) teach people that socialism = the goverment.
This is ignoring the fact that any serious socialist today should be against the government as the agent of the kapitalists.
>>263664
>The workers built your factories
Then why don't they own them? Because they did not pay for it.
>They operare...
Then why don't they own it? Why did they not start all this shit without some guy above them? What's stopping them in our modern society?
And it's forgetting that if all this fails, it's mostly the factory owner that loses his wealth and everything with it. He brought his wealth to the table. It's his risk.
>>263654
But to make energy you are expending a finite resource, even the sun will die and making solar/wind energy ain't cheap. In fact making green energy is so expensive right now it requires government subsidies because it can't match nuclear or even fossil fuel efficiency.
Once again you have demonstrated a shortcoming when it comes to an economy more complex then a absurd simplification of " shits free yo, just give me some"
>>262887
>People are forced to do work in those societies
No but it is heavily shunned. One of the tenants of Federation culture is that you are supposed to do your part to further the people, technologically/medically/philosophically etc.
>>263668
During the Russian Civil War, about 50,000 Red Army soldiers defected to the RIAU and that was part of the reason that the Bolsheviks betrayed them
The CNT actually learned about the military uprising through spies they had in the military, but it's not realistic to expect people to be able to convince literally thousands of people at once to drastically change their views and go fight for your cause.
>>263664
>we need a socialist government or anarchist committees to organize factories
>how dare those evil capitalists organize factories on their own private initiative!
>>263664
Fat capitalist guy is still correct - organization is necessary. Workers on their own won't magically coalesce into a functioning system.
>>262893
>Wasnt there some experiment with mice where they stopped reproducing when they were given the perfect environment
An entirely logical outcome. Also there was a social experiment showing that the less competition there is, the more compassionate the general body is, and their willingness to work together towards common goals.
>>262869
>>262893
>Wasn't there some experiment with mice where they stopped reproducing when they were given the perfect environment
Yes, it's a pretty fascinating experiment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun#Mouse_experiments
However, you have to taken into account that just about every person who hears of it finds a way to twist it into supporting their own ideology, whatever that may be. It's also entirely possible that there's a much simpler explanation for why the population crashed - inbreeding. 8 mice begetting 620 mice means you have some seriously tangled genetics.
>>263683
So anarchists are better then communists
but I think we can all agree that communism is so damn bad even a fucking B rate hollywood actor can get it to crash and burn
Congratulations you can go sit at the "we had a run at the commies table" with the natsocs, fascists and white guard
Always looking up the Finns at the " we wreck commy shit before we got wrecked" table
>politics
>witness the ever madder howling of "conservative" dogs who baring their fangs more and more obviously roam through back alleys of western government. They seem opposites of peacefully industrious "liberals" and ideologists of redistribution and even more so of doltish philosophasters and brotherhood enthusiasts who call themselves socialists and want a “free society” and even of conspiratorial anti-Semitic screamers but in fact they are at one with the lot in their thorough and instinctive hostility to every other form of society except that of autonomous herd (even to the point of repudiating the very concepts of “master” and “servant” ni dieu ni maître runs a socialist formula). They are at one in their tough resistance to every special claim, every special right and privilege (which means in the last analysis every right: for once all are equal nobody needs “rights” any more). They are at one in their mistrust of punitive justice (as if it were a violation of those who are weaker, a wrong against the necessary consequence of all previous society). But they are also at one in the religion of pity in feeling with all who feel, live, and suffer (down to the animal up to “God”, excess of a “pity with God” belongs in a democratic age). They are at one, the lot of them, in the cry and impatience of pity in their deadly hatred of suffering generally, in their almost feminine inability to remain spectators, to let someone suffer. They are at one in their involuntary plunge into gloom and unmanly tenderness under whose spell the west seems threatened by a new Buddhism. They are at one in their faith in the morality of shared pity, as if that were morality in itself, being the height, the attained height of man, the sole hope of the future, the consolation of present man, the great absolution from all former guilt. They are at one, the lot of them, in their faith in the community as the savior, in short, in the herd, in “themselves”.
>>263728
senpai might doesn't actually make right you know
>>263049
>every resource has a price
>those individuals/factions with capital from the outset partition up the resources for themselves
>those without capital from the outset are forced to choose between one of these groups to produce for them in order to get a share of those resources
>somehow having a choice of who fucks you makes it okay
>>263724
makho was a mini genghis khan who ruined a shitton of good stuff
t. grand grand fathers lived under his rule
>>263063
>But libertarian societies offer the best social mobility, giving your the chance to succeed because of luck or determination.
Because that worked so fucking well during Laissez-faire america. Just as an fyi, most of those who came out on top in this period were those who already had wealth from before.
>>263663
Because you need a bunch of cash to start a corporation.
It's still bullshit to act as if shareholders are executives, it only shows a profound misunderstanding of business.
>>263743
might doesn't make right
But in a discussion concerning which ideology is better the failure to adequately produce might to defend it self does count.
>>263747
>provide labor to those with capital
>save part of the capital you get for your work
>use acquired capital to move up the chain
Stock markets are the prime example of this, you can acquire capital, you can move up the chain.
>>263681
>even the sun will die
Woaw great argument, surely this is relevant at all to our situation, and having a bunch of proles pedaling at dynamos will solve the issue of the sun dying.
And of course energy is cheap. Much cheaper than energy made by human muscles. We all have 7 energy-slaves at our disposal on average.
>Once again you have demonstrated a shortcoming
You don't even start to grasp energy issues, spare me your ignorant boasting. The reasons we work now have nothing to do with the price of energy.
>>263771
not having enough people or resources can't really be fairly blamed on the ideology though
>>263763
How dare those people that created wealth to share it with their kids and give them opportunities in life!
>>263764
>providing capital is not a service in and out of it's self
>>263764
But what if all those workers put their money together. Couldn't they start something from that? And what about business owners that started basically from scratch and had debts? Why can't they do the same and share the debt between them?
>>263787
Not really no.
If you mean the "managing capital" part, then yes it is, which is why there are assets management companies to do it for you anyway.
>>263796
Having denbts means someone lent money to you. You need capital from someone who already has it anyway.
>But what if all those workers put their money together. Couldn't they start something from that?
For some service business it's possible, but you're not gonna build a factory with Joe's lifesavings no.
>>263771
>>use acquired capital to move up the chain
No employer in a libertarian system will want to give you that type of capital. Why would they want to create someone else who can compete with them or take another share of the resources?
>Stock markets are the prime example of this
I wouldn't call it prime. To the average person the stock market is seen as an extremely risky method. It's a big shock, but most people prefer to have a secure method of gaining their livelihood.
>>263779
But they had a lot of people and resources
They held all the urban centers that contained the bulk of production/people held the mines in the north, much of the farmland due to farm revolts and even got aid from the comintern.
If you follow this line you might as well say that hitler was right about his ubbermench it was just the lack in numbers that fucked him over. Not the complete lunacy of his ideology and policy that fucked shit up.
>>263775
Might I remind you that you brought up energy
I was referring to you completely ignoring the scarcity of resources with requires the most effective way of allocating the.
Those arguing in favor of socialism/anarchism in this tread have been arguing that it's more moral and morality does not magic homes and roads into existence
>>262754
Libertarianism is an idea on how the world ought to be. Predicting the future makes you smart of whatever, but not ideologically right
>>263823
>They held all the urban centers that contained the bulk of production/people held the mines in the north, much of the farmland due to farm revolts and even got aid from the comintern.
this is absolute bullshit like honestly what the fuck
>If you follow this line you might as well say that hitler was right about his ubbermench it was just the lack in numbers that fucked him over. Not the complete lunacy of his ideology and policy that fucked shit up.
But Hitler's ideology was what actually failed, there weren't really a lot of ways the anarchists could have done things better.
>>263823
>Might I remind you that you brought up energy
No, you did with "you can not create something from nothing." Energy is the measure of how you turn stuff into other stuff.
Our energy production isn't driven by human work.
>scarcity
Resource scarcity has nothing to do with human work either. We won't get more oil by pedalling faster.
Might I remind you that you were arguing about exploiting an underclass?
>>263813
Because labor is a scarce resource and specialized/educated labor even more so
and the move up the chain needn't bee in one generation
I used the stock market as a example of capital acquisition. When you buy stocks you are squiring a part of the capital of a corporation. It might be small but you are then part of the "capitalist class".
My grand dad grew up in the ruins of Ypers got hired because he was perfectly trilingual and learned flawless german during WWII.
My dad got to go to uni thanks to my grand dad being a scarce resource for any businesses that has contacts across languages.
And now I like my dad am a trained specialist, heck my dad even started his own firm. Capitalism works even when burdened by half a dozen government levels. btw the entire region rebuilt from a wasteland to one of the most rich in the EU
Anarchism is objectively the most free functioning society for an individual to exercise free will and engage democratically in the political system.
>too bad that shit aint happening
>>263855
>and the move up the chain needn't bee in one generation
Considering this is an ideology that centers around the individual, what fucking incentive do I have then if I know I won't make it?
>>263709
>>263704
>>263680
Literally pic related. The comic is stupid, but god your replies.
>> 263771
I like how these capitalism promoters always resort to "you can work your way up" as a justification for a shitty system. It's like defending the lottery with the argument that you just might win a million bucks.
>>263873
Are you just comparing feudalism to capitalism?
Because I don't think that that's how it works.
>>263843
You are arguing that the scarcity of resources does not matter
If you can not make nothing form nothing then the limited amount of resources has to be taken into account in any economic ideology. Your blatant ignoring of scarcity just goes to show that you have no economic model that can work.
Human labor effects resources scarcity because resources have to be acquired from nature, be refined, transported and then finally transformed into a usable product for the consumer/production.
Human labor is a major factor in dealing with scarcity or resources.
Just compare corporate advances in oilwells, oilfield finding and oil refinery to the state run monopolies in communist/socialist states. And then tell me that state management does better then private initiative for private gain. Private gain you can be part of thanks to the market.
>>263836
if hitler can fail because he's bonkers why can't anarchists fail because they are bonkers?
Or are they magical little snowflakes that can do no wrong, ever. Just like hitler-sempai in /pol/'s eyes, Or in other words are you /pol/ their retarded?
>>263860
and I also gave the example of my dad starting his own firm. Advancement can be both in one and multiple generations. Or do you perhaps think that my granddad doesn't care about my or my fathers success and advancement in society? That he is not pleased that the seeds he planned with his labor have grown?
>>263873
just replace duke with commune or stalin and you get it right back at you
>>263876
and how does you system promote individual commitment to self improvement.
How odes it work as a meritocracy?
Shiny metals for comrade miner for reaching quota?
>>263888
You can replace duke with stalin, but to say communes are the same is retarded, as they are supposed to be based on democratic process, with often a consensus system.
>>263893
Wait, i mentioned a system i promote? I didnt? Well this is awkward.
>>263894
I say corporation that I have stock in
Same as your shitty commune, I just have a real reason to care and not just free load on the commune
>>263900
Except you dont work for the corporation, you just take the profits
>>263899
so you just like to take the piss out of people and not propose an alternative?
Go home critical theory you have no added value for society
I do like gyrocopters... I do like spaceships though...
>>263908
No, i just realise that countering one system does not equal promoting another, and that arguing against a system im not arguing for is fallacious.
>>263904
And I can work for the corporation that I own stock off. That's quite a popular thing, helps boost motivation and creates of a feeling of a shared future.
>>263921
>owning the company you work for partially
Filthy commie
>>263920
But how is meritocracy a bad thing? The ability to work your way up is the defining feature of the modern time ever since Napoleon blew the socks of born stagnation.
>>263888
>You are arguing that the scarcity of resources does not matter
No I'm not, get the shit off your eyes. I'm arguing that exploiting an underclass work has nothing to do with resource scarcity.
>Human labor effects resources scarcity because resources have to be acquired from nature, be refined, transported and then finally transformed into a usable product for the consumer/production.
Human labor is still not what drives it. You can have twice the people working at the nuclear power plant, it's not gonna make twice as much energy.
>Human labor is a major factor in dealing with scarcity or resources.
It's not even close to significant. No energy analyst considers human labor relevant in energy production projections. Human labor isn't a multiplier on energy production.
And now you're talking about communism like it has anything to do with the discussion. Are you a goldfish?
>>263960
>No I'm not, get the shit off your eyes. I'm arguing that exploiting an underclass work has nothing to do with resource scarcity.
You are saying capitalism is wrong because of exploitation, I say it is need to further efficient resource allocation and the growth of not just total wealth but the improvement of living conditions globally.
>Human labor is still not what drives it. You can have twice the people working at the nuclear power plant, it's not gonna make twice as much energy.
If you have no people working the plant you get no production, labor is still critical to energy production or the production of any other resource. Even the apple needs to be picked to be of use. But you are also missing one key point. Every unit of labor spent producing a resource can not go to any other task. The act of producing energy by modern ways still effects the labor pool by drawing on many highly trained people and vast number are taken up by maintaining it's support infrastructure. Energy needs human labor just like growing wheat does.
>t's not even close to significant. No energy analyst considers human labor relevant in energy production projections. Human labor isn't a multiplier on energy production.
Once again o human labor no production. Even if adding more labor does not produce energy you still need it.
>And now you're talking about communism like it has anything to do with the discussion. Are you a goldfish?
I was under the illusion that I'm talking to an anarcho communist please state your ideology so I might better counter it. But not that it matters all economic theories based on feelings fail.
>>262674
Hail North Korea
>>263995
>Once again o human labor no production. Even if adding more labor does not produce energy you still need it.
It means human labor isn't a driver for energy production, which is what I said, try to understand, those are all very simple concepts.
If you think socialism and libertarianism are opposites you really need to go back to Reddit or pol
I'm an up and coming Chicago School economist. My peers have branded me the next Thomas Sowell. Ask me anything.
And while I dislike the Austrian School's a priori argumentation, they are more correct than most socialist schools of thought.
>>264345
>My peers have branded me the next Thomas Sowell.
This is a heavy burden. Thomas Sowell never said something that was wrong. Ever.
isn't the point of socialism to change the system of production to be for use rather than profit?
we'd probably not have all this shit we don't need then. for example, if art is good, and people like it, the resources would be allocated to those people from popular opinion. you can see this in kickstarters and shit. except, in socialism, they would receive the resources they require, rather than money. this prevents anita sarkieesian type deals where they just scam the shit out of you.
