![ru}levsd[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/UTvJM8N.gif "ru}levsd[1].gif")
What's you're view on Libertarian Socialism? I think I might be one
>>77299712
sounds like an oxymoron.
redpill me fellow burger.
>>77299712
I think you're confused a bit about your political stance.
It's basically political libertarian and economic socialist in my opinion
>>77300131
Libertarian politics advocate personal responsibility.
Socialist policies advocate that State must take care of your responsibilities.
The two clash. Again, you're confused.
>>77300131
wtf does that even mean?
>>77300404
most libertarians are capitalist. so I believe in economic security, but I also believe guns should be legal, gay marriage (or no state involvement with marriage), marijuana
Libertarian socialism (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, it emphasizes workers' self-management of the workplace[8] and decentralized structures of political organization.[10][11][12] It asserts 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.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]
>>77300778
You don't have a coherent political thought. You have a bunch of opinions on some things, which may derive from different thoughts. They are not integrated.
Post when you want to be serious.
>>77300404
Socialist =/= State Involvement
>>77299712
So, you think you are a libertarian socialist? How would this society work exactly? Who would stop some random guy from creating a capitalist business? Libertarian Socialism hardly even works on a small scale. It doesn't work at all when you have warmongering neighbors.
>>77301082
I'm not an anarcho communist, settle down
>>77301148
do you want me to write an essay on my political opinions? I just gave a generalization
>>77301871
He never said you were anarcho-communist.
"Libertarian Socialism" is part of the libertarian left.
That image is against left libertarianism.
>>77301777
socialism and communism are 2 different things, capitalism is in a part of socialism
>>77302046
maybe I'm more of a democratic socialist because reading about libertarian socialism it seems more radical than my actual stance
>>77302057
What did you just say?
Capitalism and Socialism CAN NOT EXIST TOGETHER.
The latter involves abolishing the former.
Regardless, socialism doesn't even work.
>>77299712
So you're basically a communist?
>>77302633
if you have socialism without capitalism it will become communism, and if you have capitalism without socialism it will become fascism. capitalism and socialism go hand in hand
>>77300404
>Socialist policies advocate that State must take care of your responsibilities.
Not really, that was Lenin. Before that socialism was always associated with (true) libertarianism and anarchism. The term libertarian was invented by a French anarchist-communist.
>>77299712
the quick stop on the way to communism.
>>77302751
no communism wouldn't work do to just how human nature is, it's not productive and not fair
>>77302057
lowkey burger, that is literally how the US works now.
>>77299712
Capitalism in denial.
Market Socialism, Libertarian Socialism, Syndicalism, Mutualism, Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, all of them define roughly the same school of thought: watered down socialist ideals implemented in a (mostly) free-market economy. Do yourself a favor and drop the label. People will take you more seriously if you just call welfare what it is.
>>77303117
yea but in the wrong way. we have corporate socialism
>>77300404
The word 'libertarian' has its roots in the socialist movement. It was used by French anarchists who wanted to avoid execution for calling themselves anarchists.
>>77299712
It's good in theory but is a practical impossibility.
The only way you can genuinely eliminate the inequality of the socioeconomic classes (the endgoal of socialism) is to have some regulations individual rights (contradicts with libertarianism).
You're essentially a soft-core Marxist.... hurrah?
>>77303493
yea you could call me a soft-core Marxist. do you think Bernie Sanders is essentially a libsoc?
>>77299712
>>77300131
>>77302918
>What's you're view on Libertarian Socialism? I think I might be one
I think you might be a fucking idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Then again, you could be trolling, in which case 5/10
>>77301958
If you are economically conservative and socially neoliberal then you are libertarian you fucking troglodyte
sounds like some stupid made up shit like dragon-kin, but for politics
>>77299712
>What's you're view
>you're
>what's you are view
Fucking kids.
>>77303683
I know where I stand on politics and I know ideology tittle is pretty much bs but honestly I'm pretty new to the term libsoc so the way I'm describing it may be completely wrong
>>77303851
shit my bad
>>77303355
yes but it's changed and "libertarian socialism" generally doesn't mean the same as "anarcho-socialism" anymore. (anarcho-socialism being the endgoal of communism)
>>77303667
>Bernie is essentially a libsoc
If nothing else then he certainly wanted to be. I think even he realized that a true libertarian socialist society wouldn't work out so he instead embraced much more of democratic socialism instead.
(democratic socialism meaning that authoritative measures are permissible so long as the "majority" deem it necessary... It's basically mob tyrany)
Like communism, libertarian socialism would be a perfectly acceptable system if only it was utilized on a very small scale. Any social system larger than a primitive tribe would begin to see the system break apart in itself.
>>77299712
Libertarian socialism = libertarianism with cooperatives?
In a libertarian society you would be free to set up cooperatives if you wished, as long as everything was done under free, voluntary association and property rights are respected.
>>77304113
'Anarcho-Socialism' is a term I've never heard of, seeing as all Anarchism is socialist.
>>77299712
What's your view on faggots? I think you might be one.
>>77304520
how can you be anarchist and have restrictions on what people do with their money
>>77304746
Who said that?
>>77302918
So, now I know you nothing about economics or politics. Please do SOME research before labeling yourself as ANYTHING.
First, capitalism is the system where you can PRIVATELY own the means of production. Socialism is where you abolish this system in favor of PUBLICLY owned means of production.
Socialism is not anything that a government does.
You sound like a Bernie Sanders supporter. You claim to love socialism but you don't know ANYTHING about it.
I believe that you are advocating for a "Welfare State," somewhere along the lines of the "Nordic Model."
---------------------------------------------
Also, you have no clue what the terms "communism" or "fascism" mean.
Communism: Socialism with no state, no classes, no money.
Fascism: Authoritarian ideology which could have anywhere from moderate left to far right economics. Fascism is not
>capitalism without socialism
That was a very brief explanation of the two very deep ideologies.
Capitalism and Socialism can NOT work hand in hand, they can't be in the same place at the same time.
>>77304531
you do realize by saying shit like that everyone assumes you're either 40 wearing a fedora and living in your parents basement or your an "edgy 13 year old>>77304821
>>77304821
anarchist = no government
socialist = government restrictions on money
see the oxymoron?
It's fine only in ethnically homogenous "states" but it wouldn't work to its potential unless it was worldwide.
>>77303924
I'll try to explain it for you:
It's literally Marxism for pussies. Marxism calls for the eradication of the state (death to any governmental powers... fucking lol if you look at history), meanwhile libertarian socialism deems a centralized government to be completely acceptable so long as it is not worked against individual liberty.. (basically building roads n shit)
i hope you can see why this doesn't work... what happens if someone doesn't want to cooperate with the socialist initiative? Do you force him? That'd be undermining his individual liberties. Do you let him go as he pleases? He'd go on to be either better or worse than everyone else, thus creating himself a new social-economic class. You're stuck.
>>77304520
>all anarchism is socialist
no. no it's not. anarchism is simply destruction of government. socialist is destruction of social-economic disparities. The two are mutually exclusive.
>>77305002
>socialist = government restrictions
not really. in practice this is generally true but in theory (which is what these people are talking about) then not by necessity...
>>77303307
>corporate socialism
Oh my god. Corporate Socialism doesn't exist! It isn't even a term!
>socialism
>publicly owned means of production with the absence of profit.
>corporation
>organization based upon privately owned means of production in order to more efficiently extract profit.
>>77305222
I think he means Corporate Welfare but that isn't Socialism that's Crony Capitalism.
>>77303667
Bernie is NOT a libsoc.
He isn't even SOCIALIST!
He is a social democrat. Look up "welfare state" or "nordic model."
That is what he has been advocating for his entire campaign.
You can't be a Marxist and not believe in revolution. The main point of Marxism is revolution, if you don't believe in that then you aren't Marxist.
I don't think you are a Marxist or Socialist.
>libertarian
>socialism
Pick one and only one.
>>77303667
>>77304113
Keep in mind, he wasn't even a "democratic socialist."
Democratic Socialism is the democratic means (as opposed to revolutionary) of getting a socialist system. This can be seen with Salvador Allende in Chile.
Bernie was a Social Democrat. He advocated the "Nordic Model" which is far from socialism.
You're just a centre left liberal.
>>77304859
capitalism is private control and socialism is state control.
>Socialism is not anything a government does
how stupid are you?
full communism has never happened I meant that socialism with no capitalism will look like a soviet union communist.
"Fascism is the unionship between government and corporations" -Mussolini
so government subsidizing corporations
>Capitalism and Socialism can NOT work
Public schools, universal heath care, socialism.
privet businesses, privet ownership, capitalism
>>77304520
People started using
>anarcho-communist
>anarcho-socialist
>anarcho-capitalist
To differentiate themselves and feel like special snowflakes. Even though "anarcho-capitalism" is just hardcore libertarianism, they still use the anarchist name.
>>77305002
Socialist does NOT mean "government restriction on money." It means public, worker's ownership means of production.
>>77305222
corporate welfare is corporate socialism, like the bailout of 2008
Its stupid
>>77304912
Early thirties, at work with my missus and kids at home actually :)
Anyway.
OP is *always* a faggot.
>>77305707
>libertarian
Minimal government that does not infringe upon individual liberty. It was originally coined by Joseph Dejacque in a letter written to Pierre Proudhon, an Anarchist writer, for his sexist views. Proudhon was the first to popularize the term to describe the ideology of Anarchism and similar ideologies.
>socialism
Workers ownership of the means of production. A good example would be YPG/Rojava or whatever they're called. Authoritarian socialist states like the USSR aren't socialist since the State, not the workers, owned the means of production, thus creating State Capitaism.
>>77303002
Lenin didn't even conceive of socialism like this. Bolshevism became more statist as the civil war intensified and as the Russian working class was decimated by the war, eroding the Bolsheviks support base. They turned toward the existing Tsarist state apparatus to implement their policies.
>>77299712
No such thing as Libertarian Socialism
I suggest you look into Minarchy if you really want to label yourself. Seems like it would fit your bill
>>77300031
socialists called themself libertarians before lolbertarians did.
lolbertarians used to call themself liberals
![chart[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/yb9As2m.png "chart[1].png")
>>77305849
yea pretty much
>>77305924
>Anarcho-communist
How the hell would THAT work? Does it just count for communes and shit? I mean, it works but I don't see how you could structure a country that way.
>>77303683
Isn't it funny how "Libertarians" only give a shit about "liberty" so long as "liberty" is synonymous with "capitalism," but then don't give a rats ass about other civil liberties like freedom of the press, speech, assembly, or consciousness so long as the market is preserved?
see: Hayek's response to Chile. See Milton Friedman being an apologist for Latin American dictatorships. See Mises doing the same etc.
>>77306385
/pol/ really is filled with people who are really uneducated, isn't it?
Communism =/= government owning stuff otherwise Absolutist France would have been communist.
>>77305874
You either are a troll or you are truly mentally incapable of processing information.
Do SOME research.
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.
Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
>Public schools, universal heath care
Those are OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT
If they are owned by A SINGLE ENTITY, they are PRIVATELY OWNED.
If "public schools" were socialist, then the teachers would own the school collectively.
>privet businesses, privet ownership,
>privet
Joke, this has to be a joke.
>>77306453
you're mistaken for the "libertarians" that are really republicans but don't identify with that because of how much of a joke the republicans have been for the past 30 years
>>77305718
You're right, no doubt, though I'd argue that he's a democratic socialist in the sense that his *endgoal* was socialism, not necessarily what he was running on.
I think he realized that the absolute most he could have hoped in his campaign was for a single term in office being gridlocked to shit. With this in mind, I think he started pushing for the nordic model as a sort of "consolation prize" to that america could one days be more open to a socialistic system. but that's my speculation.
>>77306050
to be completely honest, american schools REALLY do not go into detail about what different political ideologies actually mean... so most americans just associate the ideology with what they tend to do in history.
>>77306385
anarcho-communist was the actual communism proposed by Karl Marx. every other form of communism (Maoism, Leninism, etc) has been a bastardization of Marx's original proposal.
but as you pointed out, it's doesn't work, which is why marxism has never (and will never) be tried. It's impossible.
>>77306084
No. Welfare =/= Socialism
>looks up the definition of being an economic and political illiterate.
>this guy pops up
>>77306453
>neo-cons are actual libertarians
you fell for the meme, didn't you...?
>>77306626
you think so radically socialism means anything from center-left to communism. socialism is not a synonym with communism
>>77305874
Corporatism has nothing to do with corporations being subsidized. Fascism proposed a system in which capital and labor's disputes were solved by the State. See: Revolutionary Mexico under Cardenas for an example of a Corporatist State. It's a form of statist capitalism.
>>77306385
Look up Rojava.
Basically that.
Small communes. It really just doesn't work, unless it is on a VERY small scale.
>>77306264
That isn't the political compass of anything remotely "libertarian socialist"
You would be almost or completely ALL THE WAY to the left.
>>77306778
Milton Friedman is the fedora'd gentlesir's favorite political writer because he was an intellectually, morally bankrupt shyster, hence he's a libertarian.
>>77306868
>Rojava is anarchist
>>77306674
Well, he didn't even state that his end goal was socialism. He just started calling himself a socialist to be edgy and get attention.
>>77306810
I know it isn't. I used to be a socialist and then communist. I read almost every book on the subject.
(I am so glad I grew out of that. It doesn't even work in theory.)
Socialism = Economic theory when the workers publicly own the means of production.
Communism = Socialism with no classes, state, or money.
You don't really have a clear definition of socialism. To be a socialist, you have to be pretty far left. You can't even be close to being an economic centrist.
Probably all you have heard is what Bernie Sanders has told you. Hint hint, he isn't a socialist.
>>77307068
Honestly it is pretty close. It is what all the edgy anarchist teens who know nothing about the real world point at as an example.
>>77306810
>socialism means anything from centre left to communism
depends on your definition. the definition Marx gave (which is the definition most Americans use) is that socialism is a transitional state between capitalism and communism, with the endgoal of becoming communist.
but socialism as far as libsoc is concerned is entirely the equalization of social/economic classes. It's not a synonym for "progressive"
>>77307093
that was my speculation. obviously neither of us can go inside his head and determine what his dream america truly is.
>>77306980
>a literal jew
he says it best himself:
>"I am a libertarian with a small 'l' and a Republican with a capital 'R.'"
>>77307417
Based post Anon. Most of these guys here have a warped idea of what Socialism is. I'm glad you are here dispelling the cancer once and for all
psh.
I see your Libertarian Socialism and raise you...
DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM.
>>77306976
>no true anarcho-socialist
Brah, his beliefs are more marked by socialism and anarchism than any other labels, according to the information presented.
How would you label him?
>>77306827
Corporatism relates to whether you manage society as individual consumers/voters/citizens, or whether you give groups such as labor unions, professional associations, industry associations or other groups some form of political power directly.
It has nothing to do with the political ideology adopted outside of the role of these groups in the governance of society. IE corporatist states can be capitalist, communist, socialist or any other type of ist except truly individualist.
>>77307713
>reddit, the post
>>77307655
It is sad that it takes someone from the far-right / alt-right to explain socialism
To be fair, I have a socialist background so I have a great understanding on the subject. It has helped me be a better debater. :D
>>77307819
>socialist background, but is far-right / alt-right?
so what words would you use to accurately describe your political affinity?
>>77308039
Stalin
>>77307763
I would label him as a rather libertarian Social Democrat. (in reality most Social Democrats are libertarian.) He has said many things that most Bernie Sanders supporters say.
He has pointed at "Universal Healthcare" and "Public Schools" as being examples of "socialism," even though these are VERY false examples. He has a warped definition of socialism, which has obviously been taken from this election's rhetoric. The fact that he said that his brand of "socialism" and Capitalism can coexist proves that he isn't actually socialist. Socialism involves abolishing capitalism, so obviously the two can't be in the same place at the same time.
>>77307563
>Marx gave (which is the definition most Americans use) is that socialism is a transitional state between capitalism and communism
You do realize this is fucking retarded? It means that their are no socialist countries left and flies in the face of how it used by almost everyone else...
>mfw Marxist but every Marxist I meet is a confused liberal or an edgy faggot
>>77299712
Oxymoron
>>77308039
I used to be Socialist, in my young age. Early teens, to be exact.
I am trying to find my current ideology right now. It definitely isn't anything on the left-wing of politics, though. I support Trump. I like to read and meditate in order to find what I truly am on the inside. I need to pick up some Mussolini books because I am truly amazed and impressed with the Corporatist Economic Model. (Corporatism is the model typically used under fascism.)
>>77308229
Yeah you cannot define socialism either.
I don't get why you want to define it in the most extreme terms and then try to apply this caricature to it as it exists real life. It really is bizarre and retards your comprehension of political ideology as a nation.
>>77308286
kys
>>77308286
You know, I used to be in your situation when I was a little bit younger. Through my political adventures and numerous debates I have found many political bastions.
Instagram has a large political community of all sorts. Quite a few on the far right and about equally as many on the far left. I think you would fit in well.
Of course /leftypol/ exists, too.
>>77299712
The same as my view on capitalist communism.
>>77308278
>American public caring about if their words actually make sense
I'm sorry, how many horses does your automotive equivocate to? Can you tell me the BTUs your computer runs on in an hour?
>>77308278
Honestly arguing for one definitive definition of socialism is stupid. In one of the Communist Manifesto's prefaces Engels explains why they didn't call it the "Socialist Manifesto" and it was simply to differentiate themselves from other forms of socialism ("Utopian", "Bourgeois" etc.)
If you want to call Denmark "Socialist" because it has a welfare state, then go ahead. If the French ruling party wants to call itself "socialist" then it can. I think it's useful pointing out that those forms of socialism aren't anti-capitalist.
>>77308286
Maybe because Marxism is an ideology for confused liberals and edgy faggots?
>>77299712
contradictory
>>77308573
I don't think you know the definition, then.
Socialism is the system where all means of production are owned by the workers of the business.
It is a radical economic model, that is why I define it as such.
Of course it doesn't necessarily need to be revolutionary.
>of course an Australian tries to prove someone wrong.
>>77308570
I can respect that.
>>77308813
>I'm sorry, how many horses does your automotive equivocate to?
Well watt would you use that wasn't arbitrary?
S its not that. I can deal with arbitrary units. They seem a reasonable way to work some stuff out.
But defining things in straw man terms that clearly inhibits understanding, obfuscates analysis and departs from reality is something else entirely.
>>77308286
That's because Marxism is for confused, edgy faggots who fall for leftist bullshit.
>hey guys what's your view on anarchist facism?
>>77309033
You already proved yourself wrong.
I know the webster merriam definition. Its retarded.
>1A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
>The term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state Communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market. The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended towards social democracy.
This how oxford defines it, in the terms of those who claim to ascribe to it as an ideology and in the terms it has been practiced for a century and a half, USSR and PRC aside...
>>77309356
it's bretty good
I would compare it to Honest Hillary
>>77299712
I think it's the best model for society once we the singularity comes.
Mutualism is fine in my book, so long as it is voluntary and not broken by humanistic values (read: nearly impossible.)
A co-operative free market is a total fantasy utopia, though. Human nature and all.
>>77308570
Really just sounds like alt-right would fit you most. Other ideologies probably wouldn't cater to what you think (especially the communities surrounding them), and alt-right is just a really broad term at this point.
>>77309209
Yeah, fascism looks kind of nice but I don't quite like the undemocratic view of it.
I think I might be in line with Plato when it comes to democracy.
Plato thought that Democracy, at least the one that was present in Athens when he was alive, should be abolished. He thought that democracy was good in theory, but some people are inherently mentally incapable to make a good, long-term decision. Some people aren't capable of studying their surroundings (liberals turning a blind eye to the refugees causing a ruckus in Germany and Sweden), so their voting rights must be withheld until they are in a state of mind where they are able to study both their own ideology and the opposing ideologies.
When I was a leftist in my younger age, I not only studied Marx and similar writers, but I studied Rothbard, Mises, and Stirner. I would study everything because it helped me better understand how other thought.
Of course, that helped me see the errors in the leftist pattern of thought and then I left the ideology searching for a perfect, non-flawed view of the world.
So anyways, Plato's view on voting is, in short, only let the truly educated vote.
How would "educated" be determined? I don't know! That is why I need to read more material on the subject.
>>77306218
>spreading Chomsky memes
It's right on the fucking wikipedia article for libertarianism, it started out with the same principles as modern libertarians and got hijacked by leftists in the mid-1800's
>>77309221
Americans use political terms just fucking awkwardly, Straya.. They always do. I mean...
"liberal" = liberty... right? Wrong. Liberal = progressivism.
"conservative" = resisting change to the status quo, right? Wrong. Conservative = big military.
"populism" means will of the common man, right? Wrong. populism = racism.
"illegal immigrant" means someone braking the law, right? Wrong. Illegal immigrant means "rightwing buzzword"
"refugee" means someone seeking refuge from war, right? Wrong. Refugee is a 20 year old muslim with a rifle screaming "ALOHA SNAKBAR" and killing 50 fags in orlando.
If you're going to argue that Americans use a word incorrectly, why not go over the list of the other things they say incorrectly?
>>77309646
I knew that, m8. The first definition is not so far from my short, blunt explanation. The only reason why I didn't go so far into it because some people, the people that I had to explain it to, obviously hadn't studied it, so they probably wouldn't understand have of the rhetoric.
>>77310063
>If you're going to argue that Americans use a word incorrectly, why not go over the list of the other things they say incorrectly?
I think you have a point here. But maybe not the one you think. It is clear your (US) use of these terms is a result of (rather intense) political competition/conflict, and this shapes they way language is used.
But this one irks me becasue it is such a straightforward term. At least those other 'wrong' uses of words are SOMEWHAT in line with how other people define them, socialism just isn't.
The American definition of socialism literally doesn't exist, I would argue never existed (Lenin a shit and Mao a warlord), and yet it is summoned as a boogeyman any time anyone with enough money feels a political decision might cost him some.
>>77299712
It's like saying anarchist-Communism, it's contradictory and doesn't work.
>Big government
>more liberties
pick one
>>77310183
>or regulated
This is so different from the 'end state is communism' bullshit I cannot accept you were doing a quick and dirty explanation for the lay people about.
You were using a strawman to drive an agenda.
One I very well may share (three years of Belgian income tax + social welfare contributions = more than I got paid for MY labor), however, I cannot countenance intellectual dishonesty.
>>77309991
ironically, I'm more an anarchist than anything. (though I'm considered a "centrist" in the left-right spectrum), and yet I browse /pol/ and have intended to vote for Donald "Literally Hitler" Trump since the first Republican debate. I like much of the "nazi dream" /pol/ seems to praise, and yet I fundamentally dispose of it.
Unfortunately I actually haven't read Plato though I really should. I appreciate the summary.
>inb4 edgy "anarchist"
I'm far more practical than that. I'm an anarchism the same way that I believe Sanders to be a socialist. Though it is my dream to see a society in which governments do not exist, I know that it would never work in the real world with any reasonable sample size; in such I would effectively be a minarchist.
>which gave my gf's mom a major sigh of relief after her daughter first told her "hey mom, I'm dating an Anarchist!"
Basically my more practical dream is to find out the exact minimum that is necessary for the government to be a part of something for that something to work.
>>77310768
>American definition of socialism literally doesn't exist, I would argue never existed
Let me fix that for you: **can never exist**
But now you understand why Bernie was stepping on some serious American panties when he went out and (even if incorrectly) declared himself a socialist. In America, the word itself is such a negative that it refers to something Americans can't even comprehend as fathomable.
>>77306179
True. "War Communism" was a rather regrettable move though I understand the necessity. They crushed left-wing uprisings like Kronstadt too. I'm not a fan of vanguard methods either, socialism must be democratic or it is nothing.
Socialism= Means of production and exchange are to be handled by the community.
Libertarianism= a system of voluntary associations whereby maximum liberty and autonomy of the individual is the ideal.
How are these things incompatible? Is it not an ideal situation? Aren't things like credit unions, co-ops nascent organizations where free association and exchange happen?
>>77312011
because you can't enforce one without impeding of the other.
It's an ideal system in theory... but they can only coexist in theory. if you have even a single dissenter, then the system breaks
>>77312011
People think socialism means the big evil gubmunt running everything. If people actually did research they'd see that has nothing to do with socialism.
>>77299712
M-L here.
You are a fool. Kill yourself. Dictatorship of proletariat is needed. Do tell me how do you progress society without it? Thrue parliamentarism? hahaha
>>77311191
That clearly was not my argument at all. The first definition had NOTHING TO DO with saying that the "end state is communism."
Also, I don't recall that guy saying that communism was his end goal. In fact, I tried to to tell him the definitions of each, but yet he still referred to socialism as "public schools" and "universal healthcare."
Y'know, instead of pointing out my slight mistake, you should correct the one who initially made a mistake, Mr. Wise and All-knowing.
>>77312281
That's what it practically means.
>>77312217
You can't just ostracize the dissenter and vote for him to go. He can go off and live in a cabin in a woods.
>>77312281
>conveniently omits any problem with the bottom solution"
It would never work. when the work is entirely voluntary, but yet everyone gets the same reward.. why work?
>>77301777
>Socialist =/= State Involvement
>state ownership of business
>not involved
You have a warped way of viewing the world, I suggest getting it fixed.
>>77312281
>never yet existed
Revolutionary Catalonia? The Free Territory of Ukraine? Rojava?
Pulling the "that's not true communism" argument is ridiculous! All of the past "communist" states stated many times that their end goal was communism!
Marx stated many times that the path to communism was a process.
Capitalism --> Revolution --> Socialism --> Communism
Of course socialism, let alone communism, can never exist.
>>77312647
then you be rejecting his freedom of expression. you'd essentially be using mob rule to enforce your collective.. which isn't very libertarian, now is it?
>>77312281
The "real socialism" was attempted by the Massachusetts Bay Colony pilgrims when they first arrived in the 17th century. Around half of them starved to death over the first winter, after which they implemented private ownership of property and never suffered a famine again.
>>77312869
Socialism doesn't necessarily mean "state ownership of business."
Actually, socialism means quite the opposite. If the state owned the businesses, then it would be privately owned. Privately owned enterprises are a big "no-no" in socialist theory.
>>77299712
>libertarian socialism
>>77312658
Most people, even in our society where most work is soul crushing and done on command, find intrinisic value of doing productive work, its rewarding to people outside of renumeration. Doctors don't become doctors solely because of monetary compensation.
>>77299712
It's an oxymoron and they are literal closet socialists
>>77312992
No its people freely choosing who they associate with.
>>77313152
>closet socialists
No they're openly socialist.
see>>77303683
>>77313119
>most people
so basically you're saying "live your life for the collective good, or be 'democratically' removed."
...and you don't see how this will eventually be corrupted into a bad thing? The problem with the system is that eventually it will have to decide which one is more important: socialism or libertarianism. They'll eventually abandon one and embrace the other... and very rarely do they abandon socialism.
>>77313341
then you have a society divided against itself... again, not lasting very long. unless they continuously (and peacefully I should state) break apart and form separate communities... but then the flow of resources wouldn't be equal anymore...
the point I'm trying to make is that it's impractical. you're hoping too many things go right and continue to go right for ever and ever.
>>77313827
I should clarify that I do believe the system would work on a small scale, especially for a shorter period of time. but if you're embracing that then you might as well go full anarcho-communist (marxist).
>>77312449
OK so I reread the thread and it turns out I did get the wrong end of the stick.
I actually would agree with most of what you say except
>Socialism involves abolishing capitalism
I would never accept this
I also wouldn't accept that social democrats aren't socialists, which you seemed to imply somewhere.
But all in all, sorry anon, you don't seem the retard I made you out to be. I conflated your argument to someone else's and I shouldn't have.
>>77300131
Either this is bait or you're underage/new to political thought. If you want to get into libertarianism/classical liberalism, read some books. Start with The Law by Bastiat. If you want to get into socialism, I would suggest enclosing yourself in an airtight room and inhaling pic related.
>>77299712
Literally cancer
>>77315711
You want to help get rid of his lice problem?
>>77299712
The two are incompatible. You're just fucking retarded.
>>77315905
You could call it that
>>77299712
Utopian nonsense. Capitalism is generally far more efficient and will always win in a free market.
>>77316179
>the free market isn't equally utopian nonsense
>>77316323
Mostly depends on where you draw the line. In general, the west has fairly free market economies.
>>77299712
You are fucking retarded if you are, practically a liberal and you can't be a real libertarian without a free market and a shrine to Ron/Rand Paul and the Founding Fathers.
>>77316423
>no bid government contracts
>unbridled lobbying
>corporations writing regulation over their industries to stifle competition
>biggest commodity market is literally run by a price fixing cartel
>a free market
Hahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
>>77317050
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom#2016
>>77303667
No, he's openly for a much larger government, not any form of libertarianism.
>>77317275
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom#2016
>ctrl+f
>free market
>zero results
Markets may be more or less free, but to claim truly free markets actually exist is complete and utter nonsense.
>>77317651
Now you're just being pedantic. I said "fairly free" not "perfectly and absolutely free."
>>77317863
You back pedaled to that position, which is still wrong, because you are comparing markets to a utopian fantasy that does not and can not exist.
The regulatory hoops and hurdles you have to go through to access markets in the US is orders of magnitude more onerous than South Sudan, and yet it is still more free, despite the fact these regulations exist as barriers to entry.
So as I said, the free market is equally utopic and nonsensical as left libertarianism. More so I would argue, as allowing other groups the right to arrange their internal affairs more or less as they see fit would seem to be a key part of any government/governance system based on liberty as a founding principle.
>>77318423
You're putting words in my mouth.
>The regulatory hoops and hurdles you have to go through to access markets in the US is orders of magnitude more onerous than South Sudan
[citation needed]
