What does he even mean, /pol/? Do these Bernoits even know what political ideology is?
>>73923071
Just ignore them. Positive or not, you're giving them the attention they're seeking.
>>73923071
>meme arrows
>>73923071
>What does he even mean, /pol/?
It means he lives in a fantasy world.
>>73924596
>libertarian
>no government
You should educate yourself before shitposting.
What, I saw Americans here claiming to be ''libertarian national socialists''.
People simply don't know shit about political positions but are desperate to adopt some fancy etiquette.
>>73923071
>we want gay marriage and legal weed, but free college, health care, and housing
>but no guns or religion or conservatism or things we disagree with
>>73924596
>perfect and fair distribution of property
>coerces the property owner into submitting
>libertarian
what the actual fuck am I reading
They just combine two feel good,positive words irregardless of meaning. That name is an emotional decision not a logical one.
>libertarian socialist
Does not exist. Socialism can only come through excessive force and central planning. Without it, there is no 'socialism', because there are no means by which the dictatorship of the proletariat can control anything.
Not hard to understand.
>>73923071
He looked at the political compass and thought that was real.
>>73924596
>other people convincing someone to give up land is authoritarian
wew lad
>>73923071
>Libertarian Socialist
Christ. These people can vote
Almost as paradoxical a term as "anarcho socialist"
>>73924981
It's what leftists believe libertarianism means. They go so far as to accuse American libertarians of 'redefining' libertarianism to suit a right-wing agenda.
The raw truth is that classical liberalism and American libertarianism are one and the same.
>>73924981
>implying the majority of the population is forced to give up their property
>implying the working people wouldn't be gaining property
btw, if you are on an Ububtu or Debian system, apt-get install anarchism and read what you get in /usr/share/doc/anarchism/html/index.html
>>73923071
The closest thing to Libertarian Socialism is Syndicalism.
In Syndicalism, workers own and run businesses collectively. Managers are either nonexistent or elected by the workers and are recallable. Government, if it can even be called that, is organised through federations of trade unions.
>>73923071
I wish I could block anyone who posts Facebook screen shots.
He means he's too stupid to know what he's saying. It's like when am infant babbles real words, or you train a parrot to speak.
Enough stupid people congregate here, you don't need to post examples of your friends and family being stupid. Half this site is Facebook idiots and Hillary ads.
>>73923071
Socialit libertarianism is posible
But anything related to libertarianism and anarchism is retarded and should be banned
>>73925067
Oh god no you're the brainwashed fuck that thinks the Soviet Union killed 200 million billion trillion people.
>socialism can only be centrally planned and totalitarian
Go read some history and economics or civics. Is Denmark totalitarian? What about Iceland?
Even Yugoslavia was relatively good from 1948-80. Look up workers' self management.
>>73925584
National Syndicalism is the true way to go
>>73923071
prolly means something like this
>>73925584
That's a form of it. Don't tell that to brainwashed fucks though. They don't think it can exist.
>>73923071
Anarchists were the original libertarians before Rothbard stole the word from them and steered the old right in a new direction.
The Jew just couldn't help somehow taking right wing ideology and looping it all the way around to his tribe's radical views.
>>73925267
>implying your society is libertarian if your people are sharing property "equally" as deemed appropriate by some magical force
>>73925752
>>socialism can only be centrally planned and totalitarian
Yes, that's what I said.
>Denmark
>Iceland
Woah, what happened to disavowing these places as "not actually Socialism"? They aren't. The means of production is privately owned. As I said before, when things are look up, it's socialism. When they aren't, it's state capitalism.
You can NEVER lose when you've got the power of redefinition at your fingertips.
>the Soviet Union killed 200 million [...] people
Even though you tried to strawman the position, you inadvertently let the truth out.
>>73925090
>convincing them with a baseball bat
Isn't this called Anarcho-Syndicalism?
Also, for ID: ljjAg8hz:
Why will you not admit that you are a communist/socialist? You didn't admit to it yesterday.
>>73926400
It's called nothing because it's a paradoxical thought experiment and nothing more.
>>73925752
>europe is socialist
When will this meme end
Back to tumblr
Also yugoslavia failed because it forced and mashed people under one flag
>>73926287
Not really
Here OP let me help you out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
Social libertarianism (sometimes called social anarchism,[1][2] left-libertarianism[3][4] and socialist libertarianism[5]) is a group of anti-authoritarian[6] political philosophies inside the socialist movement that rejects socialism as centralized state ownership and control of the economy,[7] as well as the state itself.[8] It criticizes wage labour relationships within the workplace,[9] instead emphasizing workers' self-management of the workplace[8] and decentralized structures of political organization,[10][11][12] asserting that a society based on freedom and justice can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.[13] Libertarian socialists advocate for decentralized structures based on direct democracy and federal or confederal associations[14] such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions, and workers' councils.[15][16] All of this is generally done within a general call for libertarian[17] and voluntary human relationships[18] through the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of human life.
>>73926279
How did I strawman?
>hen things are look up, it's socialism. When they aren't, it's state capitalism.
That's a strawman.
Also, it's demographically impossible for the USSR to have killed so many.
>>73926588
>Libertarian
>direct democracy
Man, that Wiki article is always good for a laugh.
>>73926568
Then you're stupid. People aren't going to give up their land they properly staked because some asshole asks them to. This means you either need to use violence to take their property or you need to leave them alone in which your system isn't really any sort of socialist paradise.
>considering I'm an anarchist or socialist
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
>>73926755
>That's a strawman.
Is it, though? The USSR is both elevated as an example of the wonders of communism (re: homelessness, labor) and disavowed as "not actually communism" (re: gulags, purges).
This entire philosophy is unbridled demagoguery. It gets made up as it goes along, and it will even be self-opposing as long as more gullible people get sucked into it.
It's a cult, like the LDS, except less respected.
>it's demographically impossible for the USSR to have killed so many.
Right, and I'm the duke of Somerset.
>>73926775
Libertarian socialism has little to do with American right-wing Libertarianism and predates it by quite a bit.
Try not to get confused by the same word being used in different ways.
Do you?
Libertarians has been used for anti-statism far longer than for the right-wing, Rothboardian sense. It was pretty much a code word for anarchism for a time when anarchism was being cracked down and when anarchists were bombing buildings every week.
Libertarian socialism essentially means a non-statist version of socialism, i.e, the means of production in the hands of the workers who democratically decide the direction of the company/business.
Socialism =/= Plan economy
Although historical incarnation socialism has overwhelmingly been with planned economies.
So, yes, there is such thing as a free market socialism. Where laborers own business equally with each other (no hierarchy of owner and employer).
>inb4 ur an ebil socialist, bedder dead than red
I'm for capitalistism. I'm just not ignorant as most on /pol/ who apparently only means of political science is through crudly made infographics made with Microsoft Paint, or what I like to call, "memesearch." You are just as bad as the "democratic socialists" on Facebook and reddit.
>>73926588
I love unaware libertarian socialists are. You do realize that pasting Wikipedia articles don't actually dispel the fundamental flaws of Lib Soc right?
>group of anti-authoritarian
Until property rights are involved
>rejects socialism as centralized state ownership and control of the economy
Ignoring the fact that a state apparatus is required to regulate property ownership
>direct democracy
Known as the tyranny of the majority
--
It's interesting how your paragraph doesn't mention how there's not really any sort of individualistic property rights and that measures are taken to prevent capital acquisition by the individual.
>>73923071
>crying on /pol/ about political ideologies they don't understand rather than just looking it up.
>>73927146
>Libertarian socialism has little to do with American right-wing Libertarianism and predates it by quite a bit.
Classic liberalism is the same as American Libertarianism, and it's quite old indeed.
>>73927153
Socialism is the antithesis of freedom and agency.
>>73926887
That's a theory.
Really, the majority of people don't own things like businesses or factories or other large capital goods. Marx and his fellows knew that the vast majority of the population are the workers laboring in such establishments in shit conditions for shit wages producing lots of wealth that goes straight into the hands of a minority that owns the establishments.
>>73927308
But the word "libertarianism" was taken from the anarchists by Rothbard.
This is literally a semantics debate and you're retarded.
>>73927153
>So, yes, there is such thing as a free market socialism.
You're right, but be careful, or you might make their heads explode.
>>73927180
I posted a definition of libertarian socialism in a thread where most of the posters have no idea what libertarian socialism is.
It's funny how you all can get so angry about something you know nothing about.
>>73927308
>Classic liberalism is the same as American Libertarianism
If you say so, but libertarian socialists were using the word "libertarian" a hundred years before you.
>>73927382
Not if you agree to that situation with other like minded individuals. It's almost as if people can exercise their freedom by other means than what your idea of what and and what is not acceptable.
>>73927107
The ones extolling the success of the USSR in some areas generally aren't the ones that discount it from socialism/communism.
>>73927556
You don't understand how stereotypical your response is. Libertarian socialists think that anyone who disagrees simply are ignorant or stupid when in fact they're just flat out wrong.
Same goes for Anarcho-Communist
>there is no state
>the state owns everything and distributes it among the people
So no one gets anything.
>>73927667
I'm not even a libertarian socialist. You *are* ignorant.
These threads always go the same way:
>Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron!
"No it isn't."
>Okay, but libertarian socialism is retarded because [fundamental misunderstanding of what libertarian socialism is]
>>73927536
>But the word "libertarianism" was taken from the anarchists by Rothbard.
Rightfully so. In the same way, anarchism is being recovered by socialist/communist totalitarians by anarcho-capitalists.
>>73927572
I've seen it with me own two eyes, lad. Like there are useful idiots, the USSR is 'useful history'.
Tell me though, why won't you admit to being a socialist/communist?
>>73923071
it's just a snowflake commie
>>73927180
>opposing private/exclusive ownership of assets and capital goods is authoritarian
There have been and still are many examples of anti authoritarian collectivism. Look at Rojava.
>state planning is necessary
Property ownership can be managed democratically. Not to mention that the entire rest of the economy can be decentralized or even run on a market system.
>>73927423
People choose to work in shit establishments, in shit conditions, for shit wages because they're too stupid, scared or lazy to run their own shit establishments. There's nothing stopping you from starting your own establishment of exploitation outside of yourself and perhaps the startup fees and hoops the government creates.
>>73927667
Then what do you call individuals gathering in an area on their own accord with each other who agree that the laborers of a company share the profits equally and democratically shape it without distinct owners and employers?
>>73927893
>These threads always go the same way
They do. People who pretend to be unassociated with these ideologies come in here and defend them with extreme fervor.
Like you do, because YOU are a 'libertarian socialist'.
>>73923071
The guy is retarded. He's trying to say that he's a communist. Which is an anarchist ideology which is in a lot of ways similar to libertarianism eg anarcho capitalism/minarchism in the sense that it has voluntary association and no government. In theory. In practice, not so much.
>>73923071
"Libertarian Socialist" falls into the same category as "Bolshevik Capitalist."
>>73927557
Except most Lib Soc believe that everyone should live under their tyranny. If you want to run your little commune in a AnCap society go ahead but don't pretend that AnCaps can run their society inside of a Lib Soc one.
>>73927848
Nice strawman.
The population and working class own everything. Not the state.
>>73928029
>I'm not a libertarian socialist
>Yes you are because I know you better than you do
>>73927893
>if someone disagrees with libertarian socialism they must have a fundamental understanding
I gave you plenty of ammunition in my critique, feel free to explain how property rights are enforced in libertarian socialism.
>>73927895
I won't admit to supporting the USSR because I don't support totalitarianism. Is that what you're asking?
>>73927925
>Property ownership can be managed democratically
>It's not a state apparatus of violence because everyone voted on it
>>73927557
yep, freedom to be slaves to the government.
>>73927987
If you want to run a business as a collective in Ancapistan go right ahead, nothing will stop you. My contention is I can't run my business *how I want to* in Libsoctopia.
>>73928029
I have neither advocated or defended libertarian socialism anywhere in this thread.
Posting a definition of libertarian socialism is not advocacy of libertarian socialism.
Pointing out that you are ignorant of what libertarian socialists believe is not advocacy of libertarian socialism.
I *was* formerly a right-libertarian and am no longer precisely because I can't stand the intellectual dishonesty of folks like you. You have a preconceived idea that libertarian socialism is your evil arch-enemy and you attack, attack, attack without ever taking a second to research and understand what it is.
>>73928063
I would agree with you if the LibSoc society made an effort to force their ideology on others. But in a truly voluntary society, an AnCap and AnSoc society can live peacefully with each other. And if the LibSoc society was a state, it doesn't necessarily mean that it would disallow AnCap pockets. Just like in the United States where hippie communist communes to exist, a truly freedom-loving LibSoc state would allow individuals to own their businesses and have laborers under them if the people of that area agree to such.
>>73927945
>nothing stopping you
Except the fact that many markets are dominated by monopolies. Also, most people don't have the capital to start their own businesses. They work in shit jobs for shit pay because it's the only option that can remotely support living.
>>73928160
If you were just disagreeing I wouldn't care. I'm not a libertarian socialist either. It's your strawmanning that shows you don't have a clue what libertarian socialism is.
>>73924753
>No coercive government
>No government
Try reading mate
>>73928150
Only its proponents would be so interested in defending it.
>>73928472
>I *was* formerly a right-libertarian and am no longer precisely because I can't stand the intellectual dishonesty of folks like you.
Sure, and I was formerly the duke of Edinburgh.
>>73928250
Will you disavow communism and socialism? Yes or no?
>>73928973
When I stopped being a Christian I was told that I was never a real Christian in the first place. Libertarianism has the same cult mentality. Sad, to be honest, because libertarianism is fine and it's just you libertarians I can't stand.
>>73928511
They cannot coincide. Lib Soc fundamentally disagree with how property ownership works. They believe property disputes can be resolved through "direct democracy" whatever the fuck that means. Unlike AnCaps who respect private ownership rights regardless of the philosophy of those who own it, Lib Soc will inevitably attempt to erode the rights of the private property holder in Ancapistan.
>>73928533
>I believe the meme that monopolies come from the free market and not by the violence created by the state apparatus
If you can only have a shit job for shit pay and can't acquire capital that just means YOU are a shit person who no one values. I won't cry for you.
>>73928586
>continues the meme that those who are against libertarian socialism are clueless
You realize you're like the fourth "not a libertarian socialist" who has come into this thread saying the same thing right?
>>73929078
>Libertarianism has the same cult mentality.
Truly ironic coming from a pinko.
>>73929183
>>73929174
I'm a paleocon fyi. Ron Paul 2008 and 2012, Trump 2016
Keep living in your fantasy world where everyone who points out that you're ignorant is a secret commie pinko.
Libertarian socialists existed before the new definition of libertarian you fucking mong.
>>73929350
>I'm a paleocon fyi. Ron Paul 2008 and 2012, Trump 2016
How convenient. Don't forget: your carton of victory cigarettes are ready to be picked up at the distribution center.
>>73923071
I think the term he was looking for was anarcho communist. That's what Noam Chomsky is.
>>73929350
>anyone who disagrees with the ideal form of government I secretly pine for is ignorant
You do realize that you haven't actually given any substantial arguments against me right besides saying "ur ignorant lol".
>>73929668
Not only has he failed to give a substantial argument, he's failed to even give ONE (1) argument.
>>73925090
>Convincing
And what if he says no to the convincing?
>>73929920
Gulag or shallow ditch grave. Since you get to chose, it's voluntary.
>>73923071
They use a different definition of libertarian. Come on, it's not that hard. Do not try to score points with these ignorant blows if you want to be credible.
>>73923071
Liberal actually used to mean Libertarian.
Leftists co-opted the word after World War 2. It's very Orwellian; similar to Newspeak, in the sense that you limit what people can think if they don't have the words to think it. Imagine talking about Religion if you don't know what "After life" means, or talking about History if you don't know about dates.
By associating themselves with the Libertarian movement they are forcing others out, in the same way that many here are Conservative, but don't want to be lumped in with Jeb Bush.
We should call them out, and not let this stand.
>>73923071
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DSz4kzTe3Y
14:40-14:55 is literally Bernie supporters.
>>73930020
>They use a different definition of libertarian.
kek dont mind me just using a different definition of nazi
>>73930027
Actually, the word "libertarian" was first used by leftists in the 19th century to describe themselves, from French anarchists.
>>73930384
Sure, because at the time, the word "liberal" was used to describe classical liberals.
>>73930325
It's like the different definitions of liberal. In Europe, liberal means libertarian; in the US, it means something completely different. In the past, liberal meant you supported small government (but you were not necessarily a libertarian).
>>73923071
>you must subscribe to all elements of an ideology or use it in all applications
No. Demanding ideological purity is fucking retarded. All ideology has benefits and downsides in different contexts, and using some ideas from one ideology to mitigate the downsides of another ideologies is perfectly acceptable and should be encouraged.
for example: free market capitalism is gr8, but if you let it run un-checked it turns into corporate fascism. Socialist measures like industry regulation and employee rights run counter to free market capitalism, but are completely necessary.
>>73930706
>free market capitalism is fine as long as the market isn't actually free
I was almost getting worked up until I noticed the particular arrangement of colors and shapes on that piece of cloth there.
>>73930706
>Socialist measures like industry regulation and employee rights run counter to free market capitalism, but are completely necessary.
>he buys into the meme that regulation is what stops grocery stores from selling rotten meat
>>73928511
But that's the thing. LibSoc's are not truely freedom loving. Given the choice, they will always favor socialism.
>>73930706
>free market capitalism is gr8, but if you let it run un-checked it turns into corporate fascism
No it doesn't.
>Socialist measures like industry regulation and employee rights run counter to free market capitalism, but are completely necessary.
No they're not
>he thinks libertarian left doesn't exist
the french revolution would like a word with you
>>73930805
I don't see american style bleached meat anywhere though.
>>73925267
I gain property all the time by not being a lazy nigger.
>>73930805
regulation is what stops industry mixing anti-biotics into animal feed.
>>73930874
The french revolutionaries were retarded.
>>73930874
could u then explain this seeming oxymoron then?
>>73931249
sure thing
its not
>>73923071
>>73923490
>>73923614
>>73924596
>>73924753
>>73924917
You guys clearly don't know shit about anything. Libertarianism used to mean socialist. You guys just want attention.
>>73924753
please get educated.
>>73930805
>he buys into the meme that regulation is what stops grocery stores from selling rotten meat
No, but I'll buy into regulation that says that if workers demand higher pay and the ability to unionize, you can't use to the National Guard and hire mercenaries to murder them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
>>73923071
>using greentext arrows outside of 4chan
You're worse than him
>>73924917
I consider myself a libertarian nationalist
>The state can not stop or infringe domestic trade but can use tariffs on foreign markets. Instead of infringing on trade rights of the citizens of the state, it infringes on the trade rights on a foreign power. Bear in mind that such a system can only work in a large country with plentiful natural resources, labor, and talent like America.
>Closed borders
Simply an enrance fee. This is a lot more necessary federally with a welfare state, but closed borders are still attractive to most. It also only infringes on the rights of foreigners trying to immigrate and not citizens.
>>73930874
Most of the leftists in the French Revolution were massive authoritarians who tried to used the power of the state to remove all traces of tradition and religion from the country. Robespierre and his ilk were by no means libertarian, and the French Revolution as a whole was a bourgeois-liberal revolution, that paved the way for capitalism by destroying feudalism.
If you want an example of libertarian socialism in France, the Paris Commune is the better example. Possibly the most popular socialist society among leftists of all stripes, as short lived.
>>73925090
>give us your land or we take it from you
>see look guys all it takes is some convincing
>>73931491
Libertarianism used to mean socialist.
Excuse me?
>>73931129
>this conversation again
OSGTP is the best trip.
>>73931491
Then why do thy call themselves libertarian socialists
>>73928067
And who makes sure of that? A third party that has more power than the people so it can enforce it. You know... a state.
>>73932944
Because the term was stolen by American free marketeers in mid-20th century. The term was created by a French communist Now it's used to distinguish between libertarian capitalism.
>>73923071
>>73923490
>>73923614
>>73924596
You are seriously uneducated, wow!
>>73926001
All the way in the corner, but yea.
>>73923071
Libertarian socialist = degenerate gibsmedat
You take the pedo rights of libertarianism and combine it with the rewarding laziness of socialism.
>>73936366
No, read a book shit poster.
Libertarian socialism is the workers owning the means of production. It takes the elite gibsmedats and puts em to work.
>>73923071
>ITT: American libertarians pretend to not know the history of the term "libertarian" in an autistic attempt to rewrite history once again
>>73936687
American libertarianism = Classical Liberalism
>>73932932
Thanks, lad. One day, communism will be eradicated. I cannot wait for it.
>>73923071
It means they have no idea how socialism actually works, they just want to sound un-authoritarian while still being a commie.
>>73936601
Yeah whatever. You can try to give it whatever intellectual backing you want but ultimately what I said is exactly what it means.
Looks like making up genders is not enough for Americans, they now make up political stances
>>73925584
>implying that any business would last longer than a day
>implying that traditionally structured companies wouldn't come in and put those companies out of business
There's a reason that CEOs get higher wages than laborers.
![f28123c1f9d406ca7af64c5b71cb4bfc[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/eEOZ9uF.jpg "f28123c1f9d406ca7af64c5b71cb4bfc[1].jpg")
>>73936687
>Yet another marxist tries to jew us by redefining things instead of using a logical argument
>>73936711
Libertarianism in America has a really strongly defined set of economic principles. Did classical liberals have those? I thought that classical liberalism was mostly focused on culture and social structure.
>>73937434
Classical liberals espoused free market economics, yes.
>>73937228
Joseph Déjacque founded the word to mean communism in mid 1800's while americans picked the term up somewhere in the 60's
>>73936949
>Facts and definitions are elitist nonsense.
Behold, the average burger brain at work.
>>73937228
>redefining things
No one is doing that besides you.
>>73937898
But that says Libertaire not Libertarian.
Check mate, crypto-pinko statist
>>73938643
good one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism
>>73925752
Stalin a good boy he dindu nuffin
>>73923071
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism
>>73923071
knowing a definition and understanding it are two different things.. most learn this way too late.
>>73923071
that's as damn close to meme anarchist as I go so far as to care.
>>73923071
he means that he's a classical libertarian like the way Charles Koch is a classical liberal: historically it was used to describe socialists and anarchists of the sort.
>>73923071
a libertarian socialist is just someone who believes in a robust welfare state, but doesn't want heavy regulation on industry.
Basically it's just a high taxing libertarian
"Libertarian socialism" as a term has for a pretty long time, way before "libertarian" meant what it does to most Americans.
>>73923614
He's not using the > character to imply anything, just to respond.
Why do you think 4chan does greentext for the > character? Because using > for replies is already well established, in places such as email. Has been for ages. 4chan didn't invent it, just made it green, and the userbase came up with all kinds of new rhetorical uses for it (such as implying)
>>73925267
When you get rid of the ultra-rich, the rather-rich become the new target. When they are gone, the sort-of-rich are the ones who have to fund society.
Every time a socialist nation takes down a class of rich, they move on down the food chain again and again, because that's the only way to fund their schemes. Soon, all the people are serfs.
>>73941446
good explanation.
But do they actually believe in Socialism?
Because I find it hard to believe Socialism will mix with Libertarianism, as Socialism is quite literally inefficiency by design.
>>73923071
>doesn't know what a libertarian socialist is
Libertarianism is on the vertical axis, socialism in on the horizontal axis. An example would be Bakunin. Chomsky says he's a libsoc, but I think he's just a closet Trotskyite
>>73941446
>someone who believes in a robust welfare state
no, they actually believe in informal, non-coercive welfare "collectives". Basically, they want to live in an Israeli kibbutz.
>>73946030
Why Bulbasaur?
>>73946214
I dont remember.
>>73923071
basically an edgy moderate
