>Red-pill me on libertarian socialism.
Seems like a lot of SJW's use it as a special snowflake type of Marxism, an oxymoron.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXNoFZHJx30
Does anyone here have any good ideological criticism's of it?
bump
>>76256408
>Seems like a lot of SJW's use it as a special snowflake type of Marxism, an oxymoron.
This is a pretty dam shallow analysis of it. All it is fancy term for collectivist anarchism.
They are less theory heavy than marxists are (so you generally wont hear them going on about historical and dialectical materialism).
>>76257583
>collectivist anarchism
It still wants to establish a classless egalitarian society, does it not?
>>76257957
It does which distinguishes it from anarcho-capatlists although unlike other socialists their endpoint and methods are highly decentralised compared to the traditionally highly centralised models used of Marxist-[insert name], indeed they hold that socialism can only be achieved this way and that attempting to do otherwise will result in tyranny and a new rulling class of administrators or "technocrats" (think scientists and engineers)
>>76258410
Were the monarchists and fascists of Spain correct in their opposition against the leftists, particularly the anarchists in Catalonia?
>>76258535
>particularly the anarchists in Catalonia?
That depends on your point of view Im afraid. The anarchists there pretty atheistic - trashing and shutting down churches as well expropriating land and businesses. However they also ended a lot of waste and absentee landlordism as well as bringing education and more equitable distribution of goods and services. - All of which was done without the kind of violence associated with authoritarian socialists as we would see in Asia and Eastern Europe.
>leftists
The popular front which ruled the non Catalonian Spain and effectively governed the country was a broad coalition that included liberal republicans - (think our Liberal and Labor parties) as well as literal Russian backed communists. The moderates generally held the reigns of power (loosely) hence why there wasnt any expropriation or collectivistion in their territory (outside of land confiscated from people fled to Nationalists) as well as why the anarchist reforms in Catalonia were halted and rolled back.
However towards the end the communists grew in power as they were the only ones able to get supplies in which really killed the influence of the moderates who continued to tie the hands of the military in the hopes of UK or French assistance.
>>76256408
I've seen many socialist shills on the libertarian subreddit go on there and try to convince the true believers that what they want isn't really socialism and can coexist with the libertarian movement. LIES LIES LIES!!!
>>76259292
>The Red Terror
They didn't just "trash and shut down churches" and certainly were not nonviolent. They murdered priests, nuns and any political dissidents.
>broad coalition of moderates
>think our Liberal and Labor parties
>Russian backed communists
Jew backed cultural Marxists and Stalinist's. Doesn't sound like anything of value was lost.
Catalonian Spain didn't sound like it was sustainable, like it became too weak thanks to it's coupon idealism and egalitarian bullshit.
libertarians and ancaps have to understand the underlying economics and philosophy of their beliefs
socialists can string together words and make up new words, and continually move the goalposts
we're smarter than you. rebrand your shit product and we'll tear it down the same way we always do.
>>76259943
>They didn't just "trash and shut down churches" and certainly were not nonviolent. They murdered priests, nuns and any political dissidents.
I didn't mean non violent as much as less violent. In places like China and the USSR you had mass imprisonment ,executions, famines combined with the creation of a pervasive police state. This is what is usually associated with socialist revolutions.
>Jew backed cultural Marxists and Stalinist's. .
What makes you think the liberal republicans were cultural marxists?
>Doesn't sound like anything of value was lost
Half a million Spanish people will killed and the great damage was done to the infrastructure, all for the sake of getting rid of a weak liberal government.
>Catalonian Spain didn't sound like it was sustainable, like it became too weak thanks to it's coupon idealism and egalitarian bullshit.
You seem rather quick to make pronouncements about a situation you aren't very familiar with, there were far bigger issues that led to their downfall than ideological ones.
Indeed were it not for international support (importantly from the UK and France despite their official neutrality) the nationalists would not have been able to win.
>>76260624
Is see /leftypol/ is here. Don't even deny it.
>What makes you think the liberal republicans were cultural marxists?
>Promotes feminism
>breakdown of traditional gender roles
>egalitarianism
>ignore natural hierarchy
>no racial realism
>no private property
>Half a million Spanish people will killed and the great damage was done to the infrastructure, all for the sake of getting rid of a weak liberal government.
Hmmmm yeah right, all those deaths are caused by the fascists. That was the total war casualties caused by BOTH sides in the war. After Franco achieved victory stability and prosperity was brought to Spain, which is now in the shitter thanks to the regressive left.
>there were far bigger issues that led to their downfall than ideological ones
Yes I know, being militarily weaker. An issue caused by letting women have front-line roles and having elections to decide military ranks lol.
>Indeed were it not for international support
You had your military support from the USSR and your support from the west too, via volunteers and even propaganda.
>>76261482
>>Promotes feminism
>breakdown of traditional gender roles
>egalitarianism
>ignore natural hierarchy
>no racial realism
>no private property
Where are you getting this from? They specifically respected private property and maintained a loose status quo complete with its racial and gender divides. Its one of the reasons they got into such a big fight with the Anarchists.
>Hmmmm yeah right, all those deaths are caused by the fascists. That was the total war casualties caused by BOTH sides in the war. After Franco achieved victory stability and prosperity was brought to Spain, which is now in the shitter thanks to the regressive left.
I didn't say they were all killed by Nationalists (remembering that they were also a popular front and not just fascists)
>After Franco achieved victory stability and prosperity was brought to Spain, which is now in the shitter thanks to the regressive left.
Its kind of hard to say how Spain would have turned out had the war not been started. What specifically do you think would have happened differently?
>Yes I know, being militarily weaker. An issue caused by letting women have front-line roles and having elections to decide military ranks lol.
Nah they managed to work out those problems failry early on. The bigger issue was lack of military supplies and logistical support, The USSR supplies and technical support were withheld from the anarchists indeed they actually let a ship get sunk rather than let them have the supplies onboard likewise the weapons produced locally were almost wholly given to the army controlled by the Republic.
>>76262444
>You had your military support from the USSR and your support from the west too, via volunteers and even propaganda.
What do you mean by "You" Im not a Spanish Anarchist im just recounting my knowledge on the Civil War here. Likewise I dont think you actually understand the disparity in support.
Firstly the USSR didnt just give them supplies as charity - they sold it to them and secondly it was far far less than what the Nationalists recieved. Not only did the Nationalist receive vastly larger amounts of military material and support (for free) but France and England effectively limited supplies and volunteers from coming into republican hands whilst allowing it to flow freely into Nationalist territories.
Indeed were it not for the help of Western Powers the Spanish African Army (which at the time was the best fighting force in the country) would have remained trapped in Morocco as the Navy did not defect to the nationalists.
Also something that was also important was MI6 smuggling Franco out of the Canary Islands so he could lead the nationalists.
>"""libertarian""" socialism
fixed
>>76262444
>Where are you getting this from?
I meant that for the anarchists not the """moderates"""
>Nah they managed to work out those problems fairly early on.
By employing a traditional military hierarchy? They were still marginally less effective fighting force than the Nationalists.
>>76262779
You do sound like a lefty, downplaying one sides damage and over representing the others. A common tactic among the intellectual left when talking about the Spanish Civil War.
>>76260624
>all for the sake of getting rid of a weak liberal government
Do you think that Franco was both wrong in his intent and his actions?
>>76256408
http://thoughtsonliberty.com/what-is-libertarian-socialism
>That is, libertarian capitalist is an oxymoron. To them, coercion is unacceptable… unless it is used to enforce privilege and arbitrarily declared rights to social property.
Jesus. They are essentially saying you aren't entitled to the fruits of your labor, but that they aren't coercive.
>>76263390
>I meant that for the anarchists not the """moderates"""
Ok, just remeber though that they were a minority part of the Republican movement. Hence it will harm your understanding of the event if you assume the left was all on the same page.
>By employing a traditional military hierarchy?
The anarchists military was mainly defensive - in the sense of resisting/squashing the failed coup. When it did go on the offensive it did adopt a more hierarchical from albeit not a traditional one they would elect a central committee but once they did they followed that committees orders. However its a rather weak test given how short lived and limited this columns use was.
>You do sound like a lefty
I haven't layed into the nationalist side or taken any moral standpoints on their actions.
The nationalists receiving better and more support is an objective fact as is the Anarchists of Catalonia being less violent than the socialists in China and Russia. All i sought to do here was compare libertarian socialism in practice to authoritarian socialism rather than other ideologies.
>Do you think that Franco was both wrong in his intent and his actions?
Well Franco whilst important wasn't initially the driving force behind the coup but later came to power however thats just a side note.
My view on the matter was the coup that led to the civil war was disastrous and wholly unnecessary however once it became clear that the West was isolating the Republicans and that the moderates or to a lesser extent the anarchists would not predominate he was justified in violently removing the Popular Front Government (although some of his specific actions - ie allowing the morrocans to commit mass rapes were not really justifyed).
Were Franco to fail at this point unless direct intervention from France and the UK came in we would probably see the horrors of Stalinism repeated.
>>76264456
being entitled to the fruits of your labor is the socialist position. or do you think the major capitalists and those living off their largess just work thousands of times harder than the typical laborer?
>>76256408
libertarian socialism is the equivalent of totalitarian free market capitalism - a big contradiction
>>76264640
You are entitled to the fruits of your labor, you just trade them by choice.
The worker could be making the capitalist $50 per widget and only getting $20 per widget for his trouble. But without the machine used to make widgets, the worker would be unable to make that sort of money - it's a mutually beneficial transaction, the worker needs a machine and the capitalist needs a worker.
This however has the potential to create a system where capitalist dynasties live off the rents of a machine one skilled entrepreneur bought or built, with the workers unable to get again - and that's where government comes in to create some semblance of social mobility, primarily through access to education for the workers so a feudal situation doesn't develop.
There'll never be any agreement between libertarian socialists and libertarian capitalists though, because they have a fundamental disagreement on what exactly constitutes property. It's because of this that they will always talk past eachother.
>>76264519
I misunderstood you then.
Coming back to the theme of the thread - what are your ideological criticism's of libertarian socialism or any other kind of collectivist anarchism?
>>76264640
>being entitled to the fruits of your labor is the socialist position
The wage you earn is the fruit your labor. The socialist believes you are not entitled to more than an another person, despite your profession or the amount of labor you put in.
>>76265270
>The wage you earn is the fruit your labor
>being this cucked
a small class of people cannot accumulate vast wealth without exploiting the fruit of other's labor, along with the natural resources of many nations.
>>76265686
define "exploiting" using arguments based on morality and justice, please.
>>76265058
I'm not a libertarian, and we're not talking passed each other, you're just in a fantasy land about "free exchange" that does not exist in reality.
It's the actual version of Marxism. It relies on generous amounts of societal group think and violent collectives to kill dissidents to the ideology.
>>76265686
>a small class of people cannot accumulate vast wealth
Resources are relatively scare in relation to our wants. Welcome to the economic problem.
Also, this >>76265758
Explain how seizing the means of production from those who have invested their capital is not morally wrong?
>>76265918
Yes and no.
>It's the actual version of Marxism
Libertarian socialists/collective anarchists don't agree with Marx on dictatorship of the proletariat.
>It relies on generous amounts of societal group think and violent collectives to kill dissidents to the ideology
That I agree on, and hence why I think the ideology is an oxymoron.
>>76266265
I see no real distinction between a violent mobs enforcing policy and a dictatorship.
>>76266475
Exactly why it's an oxymoron
>>76266695
Yeah I know, I'm just reinforcing that the only real difference between Marxists and Libertarian Socialists is some rhetoric/semantics.
>>76256408
Well, to start with, it does not exist, because Socialism is by definition a coercive system.
Libertarian Socialists are just regular Socialists who lie to try and make their authoritarian ideology sound more acceptable.
>>76266265
>this old, stale Malthusianism
the Earth is incredibly bountiful, and human beings are resourceful and ingenious
>>76266843
They always reply with "m-muh Catalonia"
>>76266967
>the Earth is incredibly bountiful, and human beings are resourceful and ingenious
Typical hippie rhetoric, you're just denying basic economics now. Wants are unlimited, re-occurring, complementary and changeable.
This makes our resources relatively limited in relation our wants. Hence the economic problem, which is universal (effects everyone, no matter their socio-economic background) and permanent.
You didn't respond to >>76265758 or my question >>76266265
>>76256408
>Libertarian Socialism
There are various degrees, interpretations, and view on this, but I will take an extremely simple approach since I am not too well versed on the matter.
Libertarians believe in maximum liberty and freedom, so long as those liberties and freedoms are reasonable. For instance, no Libertarian supports human sacrifice just because someone claims freedom of religion. Other than this, so long as no other parties are injured, people can live however they want.
Socialism, on the other hand, demands control. For instance, in a Libertarian society, people are absolutely free to start up as many non-profit and charities as they want to effect their goals. There, they are able to pool their resources to pay for healthcare, food, housing, and other social needs. However, it is usually never enough. The fact is that the costs of these programs will generally be much greater than the level of human compassion within a given society. As a consequence of this, their charities will run out of money.
Here is where the problem with Socialism comes in. The moral busy-bodies are not content to pool their resources on their own, and they know that even when they do, they will still not have enough to accomplish their goal. So what options are left to them? How can they do the "morally superior" thing?
Well, that is easy! They'll just pass laws which empower the state to hold a gun to the head of every dissenter so that their property and wealth can be taken by force to support programs that they might otherwise object to.
>More women might get abortions if they could just afford them! We need a law!
>Law is passed to increase taxes to spend on providing state-funded abortions.
This is the insidious part about Socialism.... All dissenters must be clubbed into compliance through state coercion to support ever growing demands for state funds by an ever larger number of disaffected and desperate people who always want MORE.
In this way, liberty dies.
>>76266967
Not an argument. For example, nobody wants a Ford. Everybody wants a 100k+ car. A Porsche, a Lamborghini, a Viper, or a Ferrari.
Humans ALWAYS want the best, and the only reason they settle for less than the best is due to scarcity, and the price that its scarcity creates. To presume that just because the earth is incredibly bountiful in regards to material means that the earth is bountiful with people who are able to use the metal to create the best things, and that the people won't immediately discard them and want the NEW best thing as soon as it drops is silly.
I want the best PC money can buy, the best laptop money can buy, the best car money can buy, the best food money can buy, and the best TV money can buy. But scarcity means that they can't supply everyone with those things at once, as soon as they are created.
