Could libertarian-socialism be a thing? How would it work,

It would work with minimal murder and rape if there are only 20 people in it, but I can't be sure.

read proudhon, kropotkin, kevin carson

>>2148969
If you had like 200 skilled workers in a very fertile island, with a very rich mineral supply, cut off from external interference, sheltered from any and all natural disasters, it could last for a few generations before inbreeding became too extreme or a state-like bureaucratic machine emerged to regulate the production which would increase with the population of workers.

No.

It wouldn't.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (395KB, 1920x2560px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 1920x2560px

If you don't want to read actual anarchist/communist theory, pic related tries to describe how a kropotkian society would look like.

the word "libertarian" has been used by anarchists for far longer than the pro-free market right have been using it. Indeed, outside of North America "libertarian" is still essentially used as an equivalent of "anarchist" and as a shortened version of "libertarian socialist."

>>2148969

libertarian=less government

socialism=more government

how retarded is this shit?

>>2149851

>making shit up on a website dedicated to the discussion of gay chinese cartoons

>>2149884
>libertarian=less government
True, but false in the sense that you probably wrote it.

>socialism=more government
False.

>>2149887
>american """libertarians""" in charge of knowing history
He's objectively correct.

>>2149851
This might have been true 20 years ago, but present use of the word Libertarian in Europe tends to be referring to those on the right. Thank Ron Paul and co.

>>2149893

socialism cant exist without a more powerful government, stop being retarded

>>2149900
I don't care about your opinion on socialism, anon. What you wrote is wrong.

>>2149887
That's correct you dumb shit

The word "libertarian" was invented by a socialist to describe his own philosophy

>>2149884
Socialism is when workers share the ownership of factories and mines and plantations.

You don't need a government for that.

>>2149900
You realize that anarchism is a type of socialism?

File: 38b179fb78b43b54e858ab4bb212f38f5aa80890a6ce7f310c6066ab36ce1249.jpg (127KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 800x800px

>>2149884
>socialism=more government

>>2149887
He's right though. Only Americans (and Canadians, I guess) associate libertarian with some right wing wet-dream.

>>2149896
Nah. It's a poorly understood fringe ideology, but it is most certainly not associated with American right wingers. No one knows who Ron Paul is.

Basically wouldn't it be a Gov't that champions personal liberties and favors more public ownership of things like natural resources and the economy?

Doesn't sound so bad to me senpai.

>>2148969
Anarchism IS libertarian socialism

The red-and-black flag is a libertarian socialist flag

>>2149900
Why not?

>>2149975
this is how socialism ought to be

Marx envisioned something like this

>>2149984
who but a government can stop you from grabbing some land and stopping everyone besides people who agree to give you a share of the value of their labor from using it with force?

File: 60f53c9c9ca05133d0944fbea3836e6301065686.jpg (171KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 800x600px

>>2149900

>>2149991
A citizen militia, worker councils, popular efforts, or vigilantes.

You don't need a state to punish criminals who try to exploit others.

>>2149991
The same individuals who led the revolution

>>2149955
Probably a bad idea to judge all Europeans together desu, in the UK it's definitely associated with the right.

As far as anarchism goes, I imagine a direct democracy government at just the local levels. Like a city state, but each community is its own one. Say there is a farm, all the workers on that farm have a say in the farms management, like a co-op.

File: Left Libertarianism.png (102KB, 752x1668px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 752x1668px

No, but that doesn't stop the socialists from being deranged.

File: StrawMan2.jpg (91KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 600x450px

>>2150059
Has to be the worst strawman image I've ever seen, and I have seen a lot.

>>2150059
>implying alt right = libertarianism
You couldn't be more wrong.

>>2150276

True.

If anything, at this point alt-right just means internet-Nazis as far as anybody is concerned. Because all the /pol/ memes popularized that image in the minds of the media and everybody else.

/pol/ tried to make something a thing with meme magic, but all it did was create another name for Nazis because /pol/ is pure shit. If they tried to create a new wave for traditionalism, they failed hard. Nazis aren't traditionalists.

File: maggoty bread.jpg (144KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1920x1080px

>>2150272

>that image

>>2150272

The best way for anarchism to work is if each collective is allowed to run in its own way, capitalists village and communist village can be friends.

>>2149991
The People.

>>2150294
Alt right is older than /pol/ buddy and it was always about being pro-white.

>>2150312

Thats the thing, /pol/ took oe thing and turned it into something else with meme magic.

The alt-right are a bunch of single childless men who masturbate to anime now, or at least that's their public image now.

>>2150321
And what is this "something else" you're talking about? If anything /pol/ and twitter launched guys like Spencer into the mainstream.

>>2150329
>something else

I meant the idea that these guys are anything to be taken seriously and not just internet shitposting /r9k/ robots.

Wow this thread pushes all my "good" buttons, libertarian socialism, anarchism, i am totally baffled :D and happy.

>>2150340
/r9k/ has hardly anything to do with this

>>2150272
>can't remove the land from the individual cause that's authority
Chomsky has always made a nice remark with regards to anti-authoritarianism/anarchism:
If there is a structure of authority/dominance, it should be challenged to legitimize itself. If it cannot do that, it ought to be dismantled. If it can, well then it's legitimate.

With regards to this, I think we could make a case for the collective in an anarchist/libertarian society to derive the individualist farmers from a part of their produce. Which was done in anarchist spain btw. The farmers who decided to not be parts of sindicates and wanted to stay individualists had to give some of their produce away (reminder there's no tax otherwise), but in turn they could walk into any shop and take what they wanted just like anyone else.

>>2150351
>/r9k/ has nothing to do with /pol/

Sure thing, buddy.

>>2150272
>someone wants to keep his land, therefore everything is ruined
Reminder:
>If you didn't want to join the collective you were given some land but only as much as you could work yourself. You were not allowed to employ workers. Not only production was affected, distribution was on the basis of what people needed. In many areas money was abolished. People come to the collective store (often churches which had been turned into warehouses) and got what was available. If there were shortages rationing would be introduced to ensure that everyone got their fair share. But it was usually the case that increased production under the new system eliminated shortages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia

>>2150368
Pretty much. I have a hunch you're a leftist who thinks all posters who hate the left on this board are the same people.

>>2149913
>>2150072

>if I call it something other than a government, then its magically not a government

this is why no one takes these irrelevant meme ideologies seriously

>>2148969
>Could libertarian-socialism be a thing?
It is already

>How would it work, theoretically?
Like Libertarian capitalism only without property.

Still a fantasy but that's the theory

Libertarians and socialists are pretty much the same beyond the jargons, muh state and muh stealing of value or some shit. The only way we can be saved from this materialism is by following His Word.

>>2149884
>libertarian=less government
kind of

>socialism=more government
lol. Nope. Socialism is where workers control the means of production.

>>2150379
Don't even necessarily agree but the An-Cap's who usually bring out this argument are really hypocritical.

How do you suppose property exists without a government?

>>2148969
If you think really really think about it, it makes no economic sense.

>>2150423
>people cannot own things without a governing body
I'm not even an ancap but ancoms are literal brainlets, they think property will magically vanish once the government is gone. Well that sure as fuck didn't happen in Somalia or wherever the state stopped existing.

>>2150375
>not allowed
>distribution
>rationing

Sounds a lot like fucking government to me.

>>2150312
>Alt right is older than /pol/
That term didn't even exist until very recently. It's also almost totally meaningless, an attempt to coalesce a disparate leaderless group into a coherent body that can be defined and controlled. It's essentially the left's attempt to impose order on the chaos of a political internet. And to their credit it seems to be working somewhat since tons of mindless people have willingly embraced the the bogus term as their identity for some reason. It makes no sense to me why you'd let people who despise you define your identity, but the majority of /pol/acks are just outcasts desperate to belong somewhere so I guess they'll be glad to accept any label even if it comes from people they hate and who mutually hate them back.

>>2150442
If by think about you mean "never consider a societal possibility outside the current liberal consensus" then yes, it wouldn't make sense.
>>2150458
>not allowed
more like nobody wanted to work for someone else when it was much more beneficial to be a part of cooperative farms

>>2150375
>the CNT collectivized the sale of fish and eggs, slaughterhouses, milk processing and the fruit and vegetable markets, suppressing all dealers and sellers that were not part of the collective
>Throughout the region, the CNT committees replaced the middle class distributors and traders in many businesses including retailers and wholesalers, hotel, café, and bar owners, opticians and doctors, barbers and bakers
>Though the CNT tried to persuade the members of the middle class and small bourgeoisie to join the revolution, they were generally unwelcoming to the revolutionary changes wanting more than just expropriation of their businesses under force or threat of force
Wow look at that, they seized people's property by force and suppressed free trade. Once again collectivism shows it is antithetical to libertarianism.

>>2150471
It was created by Spencer in 2009. /pol/ was created in 2011.

>>2150498
yeah they should have waited for them to peacefully give up their property
Do you know anything about leftist theory?

File: Hourly reminder.png (4KB, 373x116px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 373x116px

Friendly reminder that this thread has been linked on the /leftypol/ raid thread

>>2150458
>collective decides to not allow slavery
>b-b-b-b-b-but the government!

>>2150498
Private exploitation and tyranny is antithetical to libertarianism. A decentralized worker collective taking control is basically what libertarianism means.

File: faa6d9b01269ae084fe0ab8c8184dc74bb519c92.jpg (55KB, 394x400px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 394x400px

>I've never opened a history book in my entire life: the thread
left-liberterianism long predates right-libertarianism. Proudhon, Bakunin, Emma Goldman, Murray Bookchin, all left liberterians.

File: 0edc84d0be69a6c9f62c69876cc2b620b1be6ab4.jpg (68KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 600x600px

>>2150272
>he thinks left libertarianism is about social welfare
WEW LAD

>>2150525
Well tell me again how "the collective" is not a government if it has the authority to legislate and enforce rules? I'm not a fucktarded anarchist, I know governments are a good thing, I just can't grasp how anyone can call anything an anarchy if it objectively features a fucking government.

>>2150449
>I'm not even an ancap but ancoms are literal brainlets
again don't necessarily disagree

>they think property will magically vanish once the government is gone. Well that sure as fuck didn't happen in Somalia or wherever the state stopped existing.
Property doesn't exist unless someone enforces it. In Somalia that's done by warlords. If you walked up to one of these warlords with a deed of ownership they'd laugh themselves to tears before violating the shit of your NAP.

Both ancaps and ancoms opinions regarding property are retarded, but ancoms are slightly less so.

>>2150541
>authority to legislate
wew
read a book

>>2150534
Rothbard actually never said this.

>>2150549
>using a retarded catchphrase instead of defending your nonsensical, cognitively dissonant ideology
I guess joke is on me for expecting more from a retard.

File: 1446449649768.png (80KB, 500x501px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 500x501px

>>2148969

File: e55474dc595314ebdd51ce3c9b10bd2b33c6ec6c3553d57fd74c6cb39acdc048.jpg (158KB, 382x500px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 382x500px

>>2150550
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/3194162-one-gratifying-aspect-of-our-rise-to-some-prominence-is
https://mises.org/library/betrayal-american-right-0
Page 83

File: rothbard.png (76KB, 623x299px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 623x299px

>>2150550
sure
https://mises.org/files/betrayal-american-rightpdf-0/download?token=0iU2CWZ_
p. 83

File: fb6b4cb420534a7b21a26434680c4d717f965bec5b87821c19ccce2e5a38bff2.png (79KB, 627x617px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 627x617px

Read Stirner
https://archive.org/details/egoandhisown00byingoog

Read Rousseau
http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/rousseau1762.pdf
https://www.aub.edu.lb/fas/cvsp/Documents/DiscourseonInequality.pdf879500092.pdf

>>2150423

>implying Im an ancap

>>2150571
>Stirner
sure
>Rousseau
ew

>>2150571
>read Stirner
You do know that you're just regurgitating a /lit/ meme simply because some shitposters on a leftist board thought it would be funny, right?

>>2150541
Sure, in the same sense that a random dude is part of "the government" in a direct democracy.

>>2150571
>Rousseau
Egalitarian enlightement drivel. Can't believe we actually had this faggot as a required reading in high school.

>>2150525
Stealing people's property and then shutting down their way of making a living is not libertarianism. It's tyranny.

File: rousseau's discourse.png (161KB, 296x475px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 296x475px

>>2150577
Don't knock him till you try him. I've found that in my experience most people who teach Rousseau vastly misrepresent his arguments compared to the actual text.

>>2150580
The "direct democracy" will still need someone to enforce what they vote on, like say a militia or a police force. That is very much a government.

>>2150587
>but slavery is my way of making a living

>>2150580
If they have a militia or police force to enforce their decisions then yes they are a government.

>>2150592
Nice strawman. Is this the only way you can defend your ridiculous, self-contradictory ideology? I'm talking about a real example, an example you provided, wherein the "libertarian" socialists ended up having to steal property and suppress trade to have their way. Because in the end, they were not willing to respect individual liberty.

>>2150592
Apparently having people voluntarily agree to work in order to get a voluntarily agreed upon sum of money at a voluntarily agreed upon business is slavery. Good to know that you admit to being retarded.

File: 72a933a0c84ae6cd6bf410393d6bc24955e94bbb.jpg (181KB, 642x960px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 642x960px

>>2150585
you should have paid more attention.
At the very least, he is the most convincing social contract theorist. Hobbes and Locke don't even compare. If we are to believe that legitimate authority is even possible, I think we should listen to him.

>>2150592
>reeeee that man agreed to work for an hourly wage for another man!
>clearly this gives me the right to steal that slaver's property and suppress any attempt of his to do business!
Truly the collectivist mind is a cramped and hoary place devoid of reason or compassion.

>>2150540
is that camus?

>>2150601
Legitimate authority comes from God and equal opportunity is literallan abomination.

>>2150379
If me and my friends beat up a guy who raped my sister, are we a government?

>>2150599
>voluntary
love this meme

>>2150598
Indeed, the liberty to exploit others is not part of the individual liberties anarchists accept.

>>2150599
>selling your labor force is voluntary

>>2150599
You're missing the point that that exact same argument was used to defend slavery. And anyway, if someone voluntarily agreed to slavery that wouldn't make it any better. Only a madman would freely give up their freedom.

File: d0d.gif (2MB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x180px

>>2150607
Then go live in Iran if you want a theocracy that bad, cuck.

>>2150612
>the liberty to exploit others
Forming mutual agreements is not exploitation you imbecile. If you negate even the ability to form a basic contract of labor then you undermine the agency of the individual at its very core: he does not even have ownership of his own body and is not allowed to sell its use as he chooses. You are literally saying that in your "individualistic anarchism" the individual does not have any propriety rights. What a fucking joke.

>>2150611
>love this meme.
Well unless you are living on North Korea then no, you aren't forced at gunpoint to work for them. You can simply deny them your services and they can't do shit about it.


>>2150612
Are you really going to be retarded enough to claim that needing to eat instantly means it is impossible for it to be voluntary?


>>2150614
Except that slavery ISN'T voluntary, which is the whole reason behind it being morally wrong. You can't just randomly redefine words just so it would suit you.

>>2150590
>>2150594
These. I don't understand why they call themselves anarchists, just call it democratic socialism or something.

>>2150616
Well I live in Russia and hopefully we'll be reestablishing Orthodoxy as the only allowed church soon.

>>2150620
>Forming mutual agreements is not exploitation you imbecile.
Of course it is if the alternative is starvation. The majority of workers during the catalonian revolution were anarchists, yet they "agreed" to work for others before the revolution, are they schizophrenic?

>>2150620
It's never a truly mutual agreement when one party holds infinitely more bargaining power than the other.

>>2150622
>Are you really going to be retarded enough to claim that needing to eat instantly means it is impossible for it to be voluntary?
If you need to work for others to survive, working is not voluntary. This is pretty obvious.

>>2150636
Well then by that logic, simply existing is exploitation because even if you simply live in the forest and do not work for anyone but yourself, you will still starve if you do not work. Hunting and gathering are both labour no matter how you put it and therefore you should hang yourself to free yourself from exploitation.

Revelant noam:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oztdRo9GLLk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_ze4AA-p8w

>>2150620
An individual can only have property rights when there is an entity to enforce them. The enforcing thereof amounts to tyranny by the state (or private security firm, if you were so inclined). There is absolutely no contradiction with left-anarchism and individualism.

Read Proudhon. Read Stirner.

>>2150629
>>2150633
Your asinine logic when taken to its extreme turns life itself into slavery. The very biology of your body is "exploiting" you. This is the rabbit hole your infantile reasoning leads you down, to a place of eternal persecution complexes that justify every extremity you take against your fellow man to rectify the multitude of injustices heaped upon you for just existing. Is it any wonder the brutality of the collectivist regime?

>>2150644
Sure, to a degree with are at odds with nature, and aren't free to do as we please. Although as technology progresses that restriction matters less and less.

File: b4f.png (1MB, 680x799px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 680x799px

>>2150622
>Except that slavery ISN'T voluntary, which is the whole reason behind it being morally wrong. You can't just randomly redefine words just so it would suit you.
If someone can order you to do whatever they please, including forcing you to work without pay, and you cannot get out of this situation for if you do you will only be coerced back into it, that is slavery. It doesn't matter if you sign a paper to begin with. You cannot consent to giving up consent, it's not logically coherent!

>>2148969 (You)
It already is a thing you fucking idiot. Socialism != government. Read a book.

>>2150651
Wow, it's almost like there's some sort of 'necessary' labour that needs to be performed in order for people to survive. But where does one person benefitting from this labour more than another come from?

READ
PROUDHON

>>2150651
Leaving your attempt at psychoanalyzing an ideology aside, this is answered in the next post.

File: you know.jpg (109KB, 575x804px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 575x804px

>>2150626
where's stalin when you need him

>>2150655
>Although as technology progresses that restriction matters less and less.
And it still remains uneliminated, making your claim that voluntary work is slavery pure retardation as it there is no scenario where you do not work in order to survive. Damage control with "b-but we are getting closer to having to work less" does not change the fact that you are still forced to work to survive no matter the form of government. The difference here though is that you can choose who you work for, giving you much larger bargaining power and that is just for others, there are a shitload of ways to work for yourself or even to create your own business if you have what it takes.


>>2150672
No, it isn't.

>>2150647
>An individual can only have property rights when there is an entity to enforce them
Wrong.
>The enforcing thereof amounts to tyranny by the state
Walking out of a deal does not require a state to exist. Dragging you back into the deal is tyranny.
>There is absolutely no contradiction with left-anarchism and individualism.
Aside from the fact that there is actually no individualism within it, because there are no individual rights. Ergo the "individual" is not a legally recognized entity in your paradoxical ideology.

>>2150678
>the individual only exists as it is legally recognised
Ok, this is getting nowhere
read a fucking book

>>2150669
>But where does one person benefitting from this labour more than another come from?
Free enterprise. Then everybody who didn't think of it gets jealous and starts concocting reasons it isn't fair to tear him down, throwing out the baby with the bathwater in the process.

>>2150678
...................
Not him, but
>Wrong.
Read The Ego and His Own. How exactly do you plan on keeping your property when someone attempts to take it?

>Walking out of a deal does not require a state to exist. Dragging you back into the deal is tyranny.
You are forced to enter a deal in the first place in order to live.

>Aside from the fact that there is actually no individualism within it, because there are no individual rights. Ergo the "individual" is not a legally recognized entity in your paradoxical ideology.
>rights
>legality
I think you misunderstand what left anarchism is.

>>2150685
If individuals don't have rights in what sense is there an individual? Really go on do explain this to me.

File: 1458511665684-0.jpg (98KB, 849x1052px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 849x1052px

>>2150678
>Wrong.
I think what you mean is:
>I don't know what absentee ownership is
>I don't know what private property is
>I don't know why private property started in the first place

>>2150692
An individual is one, single member of the species Homo Sapiens.

>>2150673
In hell.

>>2150696
Should be sapiens, sorry

>>2150691
>You are forced to enter a deal in the first place in order to live.
And here's that infantile logic again. Yes, being born forces you to work in order to survive. How fucking tragic. Get over it. You are free to choose how you make your living though. Unless you live in a tyranny that forces you to work at a place not of your choosing.

>I think you misunderstand what left anarchism is.
No I understand it perfectly well which is why I know these concepts are baffling to you because they assert the existence of something you find abhorrent and would rather pretend didn't exist (i.e. individual will and liberty).

>>2150701
There is literally nothing wrong with being a slave. New Testament outright requires it.

>>2150706
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/pierre-joseph-proudhon-what-is-property-an-inquiry-into-the-principle-of-right-and-of-governmen

>>2150706
>Yes, being born forces you to work in order to survive. How fucking tragic. Get over it.
There are other ways. We do not have to live in an such an exploitative system like this one.

>No I understand it perfectly well which is why I know these concepts are baffling to you because they assert the existence of something you find abhorrent and would rather pretend didn't exist (i.e. individual will and liberty).
They do not exist, except as social constructs. I do not find them abhorrent, I just acknowledge that they only exist as much as people act as though they do.

File: stirner.jpg (69KB, 800x534px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 800x534px

ITT

>>2150674
I didn't claim voluntary work is slavery, i claimed that being forced to work for others is slavery, and being forced to work for others isn't a part of nature. Being forced to work for others is a result of the distribution of land and productive forces. And progress in technology is relevant because it implies the possibility of constantly reducing the necessary work for survival, which is not usually reflected in workers actual labor time as the productivity gain is mostly for the benefit of the exploiter.

File: b49.gif (2MB, 438x363px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 438x363px

>>2150706
>Yes, being born forces you to work in order to survive.
Being born forces you to work to survive. But capitalism forces you to work FOR A CAPITALIST to survive.

>>2150711
This takes Christcuck to a whole new meaning.

>>2150718
>There are other ways.
Yes if only Eve had not eaten of the fruit and we were still in Eden where the animals gave unto use their flesh and knew no hardship save obedience to the Lord. But alas we live here on Earth where people need to eat and food does not spring unbidden from the earth and flesh of beasts into our waiting mouths.

>They do not exist
And that is why you will forever be a petty tyrant.

>>2150706
>be born
>go to land
>work in the land
>get product of the land
Is the same as
>be born
>go to land
>it is owned
>work for the owner of the land
>get part of the product of the land
It's nature that is exploiting the worker!

>>2150718
>There are other ways. We do not have to live in an such an exploitative system like this one.
It is nice to know you are working hard on making an even more exploitative one


>>2150724
>i claimed that being forced to work for others is slavery, and being forced to work for others isn't a part of nature
So what if it isn't part of nature. AIDS is also part of nature but I don't see you going out of your way to catch it.
>as the productivity gain is mostly for the benefit of the exploiter.
Then either work for yourself or work for someone else. If people in China are capable of making money even from cooking rats in fucking sewage water, then it shouldn't be too hard for you to find something when not living in China. There's also plenty of people that simply go into the forest and live off of whatever they find, working for someone, unless it is at the threat of violence, is ALWAYS voluntary.

>>2150739
>But alas we live here on Earth where people need to eat and food does not spring unbidden from the earth and flesh of beasts into our waiting mouths.
Not seeing why we can't collectively organize to control the means of production and reap all the fruits of our labor. Ah yes, we can't do that because individual capitalists currently control the means of production, under the protection of the state.

>>2150743
>It is nice to know you are working hard on making an even more exploitative one
How so?

>>2150731
Learn about how δοῦλος is used in the Bible.

>cuck
No. That is very Marxist thinking, assuming classes naturally conflict with one another and abhor each other, and Marx based this observation on English culture where it's normal for the rich to hate the poor and vice versa. This principle is not universally applicable as evidenced by societies that regard hierarchy as desirable and where it doesn't generate mutual hatred.

>>2150743
>It is nice to know you are working hard on making an even more exploitative one

>Me not being abe to exploit people is literally WORSE exploitation

>>2150725
>>2150742
>b-b-b-but somebody else has more than me!
And so the root of everything is shown: your pathetic inferiority complexes, your sense of inferiority to others. I truly believe all leftists are mentally children.

>>2150752 (You)
>spooked

File: chairman francis.png (653KB, 2028x1576px) Image search: [Google]

653KB, 2028x1576px

>>2150750

>>2150749
>How so?
By eliminating the freedom for people to form their own business through voluntary interaction with other people that have agreed to work.

>inb4 "b-but it is hard therefore nobody should be allowed to own a business"
If people that fled Europe during the war with most of their possessions lost managed to form their own businesses in the US, then that means you not being able to is either a sign of incompetence or laziness.

>>2150749
>Not seeing why we can't collectively organize to control the means of production and reap all the fruits of our labor.
If you can get everybody involved to agree then go ahead. But unfortunately you can't. Somebody will say no, and then you must become tyrants to enforce your will upon him.

File: 1912ac22b694fb509e3901f96f80c6a87f5fd8d8140ed4d5961698a3181d497d.jpg (81KB, 900x653px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 900x653px

>>2150752
>inequality=being able to dominate others
now this is the true ideology of a cuckold.

>>2150764
>through voluntary interaction
there's that meme again

>>2150761
Christianity only teaches equality when it comes to SALVATION. Marxists teach equality when it comes to earthly matters.

Romans 13:1-7, it doesn't get any clearer than this.

>>2150770
>i'm lazy and stupid and can't figure out how to start a business therefore anyone who can is obviously cheating
Like I said earlier: mentally children.

>>2150743
>So what if it isn't part of nature. AIDS is also part of nature but I don't see you going out of your way to catch it.
You were arguing that exploitation was a part of nature because nature was forcing humanity to work. I'm not complaining about having to work (what would be the point?) but about human exploitation. I don't see the point in your reply.

>Then either work for yourself or work for someone else
Now we get to the silly part of the discussion in which the capitalist apologist pretends that exploited workers have capital/land and should just start their own business, that sweat shop workers work themselves to death because they want to, and that it is structurally possible for everyone to decide to work for themselves.

>>2150767
>. Somebody will say no
You're allowed to say no and fuck off elsewhere
You won't be forced to work in the collective, you'd just be worse off on your own

>>2150779
>You're allowed to say no and fuck off elsewhere
>fuck off elsewhere
So they still end up stealing his land. And probably anything of value on it.

>>2150752
Great argument. I'll call you whenever i need another session, sigmund.

>>2148969
>>>/pol/

>>2150764
>By eliminating the freedom for people to form their own business through voluntary interaction with other people that have agreed to work.
Oh my, I'm so sorry. Now, let's go back to late 19th-century America
>Fucking abolitionists, trying to take our slaves away!
>Eliminating the freedom of these here white states!

>>2150767
>If you can get everybody involved to agree then go ahead. But unfortunately you can't.
>Somebody will say no, and then you must become tyrants to enforce your will upon him.
Oh, I'm so sorry. Let's go back to late 19th-century America.
>Booth: Sic semper tyrannis!

File: MarxLeninMaoChrist.jpg (59KB, 350x491px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 350x491px

>>2150775
All of the pre-marx socialists and communists were Christians, and liberation theology is still a thing. you don't have to be a marxist to be a socialist.

>>2150725
what has to be going on in your mind
capitalism doesn't force you to work for ANY particular type of person. i can potentially work for any other adult human in the country.

>>2150785
>stealing
what the fuck are you talking about

>>2150786
That's what it boils down to. Ultimately what you are so peeved about is that in this situation where you're forced to work somebody else has a more advantageous position than you do. And it pisses you off. Your entire proposed system is designed to tear down his advantages and transfer as much of them to yourself as you can get away with.

>>2150791
Liberation theology is heretical.

>a lot of people adhering to X were Y, therefore X=Y
Brainlet.

File: e4b973333bcb540dc080bc9d539c4bea3490c8d24f7cd6a06e1c9963cd48918f.jpg (29KB, 598x764px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 598x764px

>>2150793
>I can potentially work for any other adult human in the country
if it's wage labor, you're working for a capitalist. and considering that is the dominant mode of production, that's exactly what almost everyone is going to be doing.

>Property is theft
Think for a second how absurd and self-refuting this statement is.

>>2150770
>there's that meme again
You still haven't proven how there is no alternative than to work for a business. I have given plenty of examples and all you have given me is "OH WELL BUT WHAT ABOUT STARVATION" which is a non-sequitur as previously explained.


>>2150778
>I'm not complaining about having to work (what would be the point?) but about human exploitation
There are alternatives and the individual chooses to not pursue these alternatives, thus it is voluntary.
>Now we get to the silly part of the discussion in which the capitalist apologist pretends that exploited workers have capital/land and should just start their own business
Feel free to read the example again. And then read it a couple more times just in case.


>>2150779
>You won't be forced to work in the collective, you'd just be worse off on your own
In theory, indeed you won't. In practice you most certainly will.


>>2150791
Liberation theology was shilled by the Soviet Union under the guise of religion. That is why it is given the word "liberation" in the name.

>>2150790
>yet more strawmen
Do you have a single real argument?

>>2150806
idk, maybe you should actually read the book to discover what he meant by it?

File: I-Married-a-Communist1.jpg (104KB, 480x622px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 480x622px

>>2150801
>Liberation theology is heretical.
Property is heretical.

>>2150811
Yes. Private property is by it's nature exploitative, and arguing for it's existence, leading to the "voluntary" employment of those who do not own the means of production as private property by those who do is nonsensical.

>>2150815
Christianity teaches that you should give out your posessions with the poor, not that a "revolutionary committee" has the right to steal your shit.

According to Christians, poverty is a virtue. According to soialism, poverty should be abolished.

>>2150807
>There are alternatives and the individual chooses to not pursue these alternatives, thus it is voluntary.
>Feel free to read the example again. And then read it a couple more times just in case.
So you do think that it is structurally possible to have a modern industrial capitalist economy in which nobody is a wage laborer and that some sweat shop worker working 14 hours per day does so voluntarily. Absolutely ridiculous. There's no much else to add.

>>2150803
you realize that's circular logic, right?
>if you work in a capitalist system, you are working for a capitalist
>a capitalist is defined as any person you work for in a capitalist system
your argument is therefore meaningless
what special qualities do "capitalists" have that set them apart from non-capitalists. if i work for myself, then _I_ am the "capitalist".
>I can potentially work for any other adult human in the country
you have not told me why this statement is false

>>2150828
A capitalist is someone who exploits another's labour for profit
this isn't hard
why don't you read

>>2150824
The situation of China for the average worker is improving, it is unfortunate to have to work in a sweat shop but as with any shit situation, it is simply that way. Not even a magical restructuring of the Chinese people would instantly solve the issues they face now, you know this to be true. And like I said with my example, even in China people find alternatives, the alternative may be as shit as any other but that is simply due to the situation there.


>>2150831
Except that you assume that it is exploitation

>>2150831
if i work for myself, how am i exploiting my own labor for profit. you can't exploit your own labor.
working for yourself is an option. that alone disproves your claim "you have NO CHOICE but to work for an exploitative capitalist"

>>2149928
Incorrect

>>2150848
Well, you are preventing others from working for themselves by taking hold of some means of production as your own property.

File: 589.jpg (107KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 540x960px

>>2150807
>Liberation theology was shilled by the Soviet Union under the guise of religion.
And rich fucks have been fighting for laizze-fair capitalism in the guise of economics for centuries. capitalist materialism has turned christmas into a time of feasting and celebrating wealth. poverty is relative, it's only a virtue to the extent it allows you to feel God's love and empathy for your fellow man.

>>2150848
>work for yourself!
and get undercut by a big capitalist?
no thanks

>>2150848
>he doesn't know what collective unfreedom is

File: 263e79d1efbcb067cfd4e08cf1435ee42b66977a5ec021e03eeb7820df5e63ff.jpg (33KB, 247x353px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 247x353px

>>2150821
>he doesn't know what communalism is
>he doesn't know what distributism is

>>2150855
>by taking hold of some means of production as your own property.
By taking something that they never owned to begin with. If I take a rock, some string and a piece of wood in order to make a tool, then I sell this tool to another person, then this other person gives this tool for his employees to work with. In that situation they are given the tool but they are in no way entitled to it, so in what way would that be exploitation by "preventing others from working for themselves"?

>>2150866
Distributism isn't socialism, it was created specifically to counter hoth socialism and capitalism. Like I said, you're a brainlet.

>>2150842
>it is simply that way
Obviously not an argument. If the workers owned the place they could live, if not decently, at least significantly better. And to libertarianism denying this possibility in favor of the property "rights" of the owners exploiting them is unthinkable.

>even in China people find alternatives
This is the equivalent of "anybody can win the lottery". It's not possible for everybody in a modern industrial capitalist country to suddenly work independently, and there's not much else to say in this point as i already said.

File: IMG_0028.jpg (331KB, 858x1024px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 858x1024px

Capital is money, capital is commodities. … By virtue of it being value, it has acquired the occult ability to add value to itself. It brings forth living offspring, or, at the least, lays golden eggs.

Karl Marx (1867) Das Kapital Vol. I, Ch. 4, pg.171 - 172

>>2150855
there is not a finite amount of "means of production" you can build more machines. how am i hurting other people by building my own tools and using them.
>>2150848
only because people voluntarily buy from big capitalists. because they're more efficient. so it's a good thing they exist.
>>2150848
the word for collective unfreedom is "false". buzzwords invented by silly retard marx do not constitute "arguments"

>>2150870
I'm just talking about alternatives to capitalism here. You shouldn't assume the only other alternative is soviet style economy.

>>2150867
>If I take a rock, some string and a piece of wood in order to make a tool, then I sell this tool to another person, then this other person gives this tool for his employees to work with. In that situation they are given the tool but they are in no way entitled to it, so in what way would that be exploitation by "preventing others from working for themselves"?
That is personal property, not private.

>By taking something that they never owned to begin with.
Something that no one person should "own".

>there is not a finite amount of "means of production" you can build more machines. how am i hurting other people by building my own tools and using them.
How have you produced these machines? With some other means of production. All means should be communally owned so as to prevent exploitation as much as possible.

>>2150725
>But capitalism forces you to work FOR A CAPITALIST to survive.
hmm, you could work for a coop, though.
Or join Twin Oaks or some other similar commune.

>>2150882
Point to me where I was advocating capitalism you dumbass.

>>2150636
Yes it is you fucking brainlet

>>2150867
Nice fantasy. In the real world a worker makes the machine and the capitalist sells it to another capitalist.

>>2150892
>do X or die
>doing X is an option
ok

>can anti freedom work with freedom

No.

I'll just only freedom please, socialism is cancer.

File: fcc.gif (3MB, 395x313px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 395x313px

>>2150888
Point to where I was talking about a "revolutionary committee" controlling production.

>>2150883
logistically, it will never work for something to be "communally" owned. it's inefficient. how do you decide who gets to use it at what time?
step out of fantasy land utopia and into the real world. SOMEONE needs to control the capital, and it might as well be the person that built it.
i can buy tools, and use those tools to assemble machines. the machines are worth more than the tools; that's value created by my labor. I have the right to own the resulting machines, because they are the fruit of MY labor.

>>2150899
>still defending this absolutely retarded point
top fucking kek

>>2150888
>>2150906

There is no alternative to freedom you retarded fucks, either you have freedom (capitalism) or you don't.

File: 1468976337557-0.jpg (119KB, 623x623px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 623x623px

>>2150902

>>2150910
>people can't collectively decide things
How the hell do you explain the endless examples of self-governance?

>>2150899
Yes, you don't have to survive.

>>2150910
>SOMEONE needs to control the capital
I'd rather capital not exist at all

>>2150906
Right here: >>2150761

Unless you think communism doesn't have a specific meaning and all that isn't capitalism is communism.

>>2150899
>nobody wants to die

>>2150917
You don't either.

>>2150918

Kill yourself then and we get rid of you, human capital.

File: 5402fb7a8957f8247076d338a04925349a4f08abfad510043ed03884505099e4.jpg (51KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 640x480px

>>2150913
>he thinks capitalism is freedom
I don't recall being asked if I wanted to live under capitalism.

>>2148969
Small government with basic income?

>>2150913
And I'm very much against freedom.

File: 1481179075920.jpg (43KB, 474x445px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 474x445px

>>2150913
>Freedom (capitalism)

>>2150927
This is a rather interesting idea. All governments, no matter how small, collect taxes, after all.

>>2150926
>>2150930

Capitalism is de facto freedom.

>>2150927

Basic income does not work.

>>2150913
>do you want to rent yourself to capitalist A or to capitalist B? you're free to chose

File: zizeksniff.png (2MB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x800px

>>2150933
>Capitalism is de facto freedom.

File: op's mom.png (666KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

666KB, 640x640px

>>2150919
communism means worker ownership of the means of production. A "revolutionary committee" isn't the workers.

>>2150916
the size of government is restrained
>>2150910
you want literally zero tools to exist? you want to starve to death because of your ridiculous economic system?
i'm ok with that

>>2149887

if you don't believe his historical argument which is correct, maybe etymology will be more convincing: libertarian derives from the word liberty, with the suffix -arian meant to connote partisanship to the idea thus modified. so a libertarian would be essentially the party of liberty. now, you have to be seriously deluded and ignorant if you believe that capitalist control of powers usually delegated to the state has anything to do with liberty. this, however, is the broad policy plan that today's """libertarians"" generally endorse.

File: ca9f985439e9e64d45f26b8c1b00a9fbd718b4f375ed706ed70529c76966df24.jpg (78KB, 500x732px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 500x732px

>>2150933
what did he mean by this?

>>2150936
Posting a meme "philosopher" that spends most of his time talking about how he enjoys being fisted isn't exactly helping your case.

>>2150933
Friedman pretty much advocated a basic income in the form of NIT

>>2150939
>the size of government is restrained
So, you are freely admitting that people can collectively decide things? Why can't a group of workers self-govern themselves, and voluntarily agree to share the means of production, excluding no one, so as to prevent exploitation via private property? This isn't necessarily government, by the way.

>>2150927
>>2150571

>>2150945
>X believed this therefore you should too
You sure convinced me

>>2150937
>woker ownership
No retard, that is socialism. Communism means no ownership at all. Any more brainlet posts you want to entertain us with or are you finally fucking off?

File: booky.jpg (129KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1920x1080px

>this thread
bookchin fucking weeps

>>2150954
read
a
fucking
book

File: 1458514588638.png (7KB, 335x365px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 335x365px

>>2150578
I've read the Ego and It's Own. While I disagree with Stirner on some minor points, there's little doubt his critique of states, private property and ideology is extremely far left.

>>2150953
Look it up at least.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax#Specific_models

>>2150958
Guaranteed I read more than you, Ameriblubber.

File: 13094364_1669851906624347_7226336751267738328_n.jpg (33KB, 350x525px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 350x525px

>>2150954
Personal property and social property would still exist under communism. Only private property wouldn't

The only way it would work would be a kind of socialism in which worker cooperatives traded freely on the marketplace. There could be a participatory system of government based on councils of elected representives.

Basically "ParPoly" and "Economic Democracy" mixed together.

>>2150968
did u just assume my nationality

>>2150966
Giving a source for your claim that he believed it isn't an argument, that is simply you being a lazy shit

>>2150973
READ PROUDHON

>>2150977
My argument isn't simply that he believed it, my argument is that it actually makes a lot of sense.

>>2150978
I did when I was 15, during my anarchist phase. Grew out of it by about 19. Now I'm a Christian conservative.

>>2150985
>my argument is that it actually makes a lot of sense.
No, that is your claim. An argument is a justification or at the very least an elaboration from which the reasoning can be extracted.

>>2150996
Did you fall on your head?
I'm so sorry anon, seems the damage has been permanent

>>2151005
You'll probably grow out of the anarchism as well. Most people do.

>>2151007
Shut up, Bond. I'm not trusting any MI6 agent.

>>2150971
>there is a difference

>>2151005
>>2151007
yeah, become a market socialist or communalist instead. we got macadamia nut cookies.

>>2151012
>he doesn't know

>>2151014
But I'm already a mutualist, anon

>>2151014
Oh no, I went through a market socialist phase as well. Grew out of that also.

>>2151018
>muh means of memeduction
My cock is the means of production if I stretch the definition enough.

>>2151024
Don't worry anon, my ass can stretch far enough.

>>2151028
Yeah all communists I've known were literal faggot bottoms for some reason. Bet you also have goofy glasses and a patchy beard.

>>2151022
I went through a phase for every possible political ideology that can be conceived. The ideology i currently adhere to is therefore irrefutable and the culmination of my vast gained knowledge. You are all but merely children debating from ideologies i abandoned long ago.

>>2151034
so, you don't want to fuck?

>>2151036
That's an odd way of saying "I'm a liberal"

>>2151041
I'm taken and don't want to catch some nasty shit.

>>2151048
:(

>>2151036
Then I hope you've reached conservativism. Otherwise you're still only an adolescent.

>>2151053
>literally advocating maintaing the status quo, which has always historically changed

>>2151036
This so much.

>I used to be racist like you now I'm old and wise and let my wife fuck other men
>I used to be a SJW like you now I'm a patrician libertarian which is the epitome of maturity
>I used to be edgy and offensive now I'm a sanitized normie and basically you're a virgin loser

>>2151053
>My political ideology is the most adult
>Your political ideology is the most infantile

>>2151052
Are you white at least?

>>2151062
Is it okay if I'm 1/32 Cherokee?

>>2151055
The fact that you don't know what conservativism actually is suggests you haven't reached any kind of intellectual endpoint.

>>2151068
What's the other admix

>>2151072
>Conservatism as a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization.

>>2151079
Maybe he's a Burkean conservative, in which case tread carefully because he might go maximum autismo

>almost 2017
>there are still people that believes capitalism is bad

Where's the Zyklon B when you need it

>>2151079

>>2151086
This anon knows.

>>2151099
>i was right
>actually having the most autistic conservative ideology known to man
how does it feel to never be loved?

File: 12122490_10207947229063216_2017507955479068966_n.jpg (17KB, 612x332px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 612x332px

Fucking ludicrous that people here will shit on reddit, but at least there they are not total illiterate on politics. Anyone on r/history will know what socialism actually means, cause they read a books instead of learn it on image-board and ancap youtube videos.

>>2149925
Ain't that syndicalism doe?

>>2151142
>Anyone on r/history will know what socialism actually means
Gee, I wonder why a site filled to the brim with leftists may be more likely to regurgitate the same garbage you would, it is a complete mystery

>>2151103
God loves everyone, anon; even Burkean Conservatives.

But I think conservativism of the kind I subscribe to is more easily defined by what it opposed to - namely, idealistic utopianism. The idea that you can simply destroy something that took a thousand years to build and replace it with something you dreamt up one night. That's why I turned away from market socialism. Yes it makes sense in theory, but the lesson of the 20st century is that utopian dreams are never realised.

>>2151168
>The idea that you can simply destroy something that took a thousand years to build and replace it with something you dreamt up one night
can you even dialectics son

>>2149925
Syndicalism is a socialist tendency!

>>2151178
I'm afraid I cannot.

(And please excuse typos, on phone.)

>>2151183
Let me put it this way:
Did the formation of capitalism destroy everything about mercantilism? Did the formation of mercantilism destroy everything built up by feudalism?
We see communism as the logical build up of history, the next necessary stage it must go through.

>>2151178
Hegel's dialectic is a neat idea in theory but outside of the concept it is useless. It cannot be applied to philosophy to extract objective truth since it reached the ceiling long before he preached his dialectic, and in real life all it means is "X is closer to happening now", which is an incredibly pointless simplification of real life events.

>>2151178
I can't into something wrong

>>2151195
>it reached the ceiling long before he preached his dialectic
demonstrably false

>>2151164
>Gee, I wonder why a site filled to the brim with leftists may be more likely to regurgitate the same garbage you would, it is a complete mystery

Christ. He's just pointing out that half this thread has been a clusterfuck because "Socialism" means different things to different people.

I don't know why this concept is so hard to grasp.

"Socialism", depends on who said it can mean
>Collective worker ownership of property - think Co-op
>State Socialism of the USSR
>A rainbow of Anarcho-Socialistic systems
>A general pro-workers rights and redistirbutive tax system view
>Any form of government system, from the English NHS to the military for the super autists

>>2151205
Feel free to demonstrate how philosophy is being furthered to find objective truth using dialectics then, since you are so willing to claim that I am not only wrong but demonstrably wrong.

>>2151192
Right, but commies usually advocate the overthrow of the capitalist class through violent revolution. Not a gradual change arising through centuries of experience.

Then there's the fact that dialects have no empirical basis whatsoever.

>>2151228
>implying the history of the world is the history of gradual change
No mercantilism if not for the Dutch-Spanish war
No liberal democracy if not for the French and American revolution

>>2151244
>No liberal democracy if not for the French and American revolution

Things can and do change in an instant. But the point is that they generally don't change for the better when they do. Which is the point Burke was making in his Reflections.

>>2151278
Except, in the long run they do.
When has reformism ever worked to fundamentally elevate society, instead of quietly ameliorating its contradictions?
Had Burke lived in the middle ages he would be pissy about uppity serfs not just waiting for the lords to make it all better.
Progress has always been a struggle, never a gift.

>>2149925
Sounds like cooperativism. I suppose one could claim it's a kind of socialism.

>>2151318
British history before WWI is a lesson in how gradual change can bring about social progress. The reason Burke is remembered today is because he was so utterly vindicated by what actually happened in France during and after its (first) revolution.

You're missing the point about Burkean conservativism though. It isn't about keeping things as they are, it's about scepticism of utopian radical change. If Burke was alive during the middle ages he might have opposed the radical overthrow of the feudal system, not because he would think feudualism is the best of all worlds, rather because there would be no guarantee of a better system after the revolution - the middle ages planners would be dreaming up their utopia without the knowledge we have today.

I, for instance, would be in favour of reforms that promote worker cooperatives, but not for a revolution to force all firms to become cooperatives.

>>2148969
Guaranteed basic income in place of benefits to be used however the fuck you want? also possibly one universal tax instead of separate income and property taxes etc

>>2151195

So many words to say nothing.

>>2151318
>>2151244

>history is punctuated by critical moments
>>later
>history unfolds "in the long run"

sounds like someone cant into dialectics

>>2151419
So you're a social democrat.

>>2151580
Basically, yes.

I think market worship is radical utopianism of a different form and I do not consider Thatcher or Reagan to be my kind of conservative. To me, economics is a practical matter - social policy is were I would differ from most "social democrats" since they tend to be social liberals. For instance, I am in favour of captial and corporate punishment, selective education, and I am against abortion, no fault divorce, drug legalisation etc.

>>2151580
Literally everyone is who isn't a radical- it isn't a useful term

>>2150607
>God
Jesus Christ I though /his/ was at least semi-competent

>>2152134
>baaaawww why isn't /his/ a secular circlejerk

>>2150626
Putin is not that stupid

No. As Marx said: "socialism is just when the government controls everything"

>>2152141
>oh shit he insulted my blind devotion an invisible man in the sky, I'd better paint him as an emotionally unstable child to cover up my own insecurities about my asinine beliefs

No, as Marx said 'hahaha I can't believe people are falling for this shit omfg'

>>2152177
*tip*

>>2152177
*tips projection*

>>2150946
>So, you are freely admitting that people can collectively decide things?
Not very well. Which is why we should have as small a government as possible.

>>2150946
also, what other way is there to do this besides government?
i suppose you can create a corporation where shares are divided evenly between all workers. but capitalism allows that to happen.
all the good ideas from marx's ideology are basically present in modern capitalist democracies.
we just left out the crap ideas, like for example "get rid of money", because money facilitates trading.

>>2150294
There's overlap between libertarians and white nationalists, but those kind of people tend to lean heavily to the nationalist side. You really can't be both to any strong degree without becoming inconsistent. More often I think "libertarian" is a convenient label that's adopted by some conservatives and nationalists that want to water-down their views to be more palatable to voters.

>>2152259

I don't really see how you can be an nationalist and a libertarian at the same time.

Because libertarians want the government to fuck off as much as possible, and nationalists want a strong government that is for a specific group.

A real hardcore libertarian 's view on immigration is a guy walks up to the US border, and becomes a citizen just by asking.

>>2149900
Socialism can exist with any type of government. It just so happens that Libertarianism advocates for a limited form of government.

>>2148984
>read retard commie texts

>>2150377
If the resident "left haters" didn't all parrot literally the same clichés and poorly understood buzz points (hurrrr dats socialism!! SJWs!!! Cucks!!) you might have a point.

For what it's worth, I consider myself a centrist/moderate, if a bit left-leaning (not American, btw). I cannot recall a single articulate and fairly balanced critique from a rightist on this website in the many years I've been here.

File: 333c5edd66df350a040c0269cb5b342585b35f2448111bec08bf034598916862.jpg (29KB, 554x380px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 554x380px

>>2150599

>>2153153
I think you're a little more sympathetic to the left then you let on, especially considering the leftist arguments on this website are literally
>That's not socialism, that's state capitalism
and (rarer but my favourite)
>here is a small population of a socialist society that lasted a couple of years that has practically no economic on historic documentation but it proves that socialism is a workable system

>>2151150
No, socialism is the broader ideology while mutualism and syndicalism base their ideas off o fit.

>>2150973
Even then, the free market isn't necessary. You could have a system of consumers councils and what not. Though markets would work best until there's a viable alternative.

>>2150954
Holy shit read a book. There's a difference between personal property, private property, state property, and socialized property. The abolition of private property means there would be no enterprises owned by one man alone. All enterprises would be funded socially and run by worker cooperatives.

Imagine if google suddenly split it entire share among the workers so they could democratically make decisions rather than a board of director making decisions.

Socialism is about letting people who produce and come up with innovations decide what to do. In essence, democracy in the economy to make it work for us rather than those that the top.

>>2149884
>american education

>>2153239
>You could have a system of consumers councils and what not.
I like this idea, because then i can also claim its state capitalism when it fails

>>2153241
There are multiple forms of socialism and you can certainly argue that the command economy system falls under the very broad definition of socialism

Anywho, literally never been successfully implemented, only seen (very limited) examples of worker co-ops under capitalist systems. Generally a hierarchical structure has proven to be the most efficient system of managing a company

File: tmp_1066-1480961541310-221710105.png (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>2150359
So farmers had to pay taxes to a collective? That sounds strangely like a government.

>>2150359
>but in turn they could walk into any shop and take what they wanted just like anyone else.
Do leftists know what incentives are? Or do they just pretend that they are irrelevant

INCENTIVES. MATTER.

File: tmp_1066-1480703453212-1180634733.jpg (4MB, 3840x5712px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3840x5712px

>>2150592
>wages are slavery

LVT was BTFO in the 1870's

File: tmp_1066-14803571594882027432330.jpg (2MB, 2135x3000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2135x3000px

>>2150848
>you have NO CHOICE but to work for an exploitative capitalist"
Nobody is stopping you from starting your own business

>>2153285
JUST start your own business
excellent argument

File: 372452f7f23fd42ab0824ee773664aaecc86995b6fcc5736d3e8f4edde05b169.png (177KB, 1400x680px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1400x680px

>>2153305
I did, it's incredibly simple. You just need initiative and creativity, something /leftypol/ lacks.

>>2153317
>implying leftist oppose capitalism because they can't run a business
are you always this low effort?

File: tmp_1066-1480461095771-876091959.jpg (2MB, 1444x2076px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1444x2076px

>>2153326
They primarily oppose it because they believe in the LVT meme, which has long been disproven. This meme in turn enforces the wage slavery meme, which I pointes out is a meme because alternatives to wage labour are perfectly possible.

Hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty thanks to capitalism. Go to China and ask the people if they want go back to communism.

>>2153285
Doesn't change the fact that there is a flaw in the system. Also even if one start a co-op, the exploitative nature of business will force the co-op to undercut themselves to compete. It is a fundamental flaw no individual can fix or ignore

>>2153403
Coops can compete in a capitalist system just fine, Mondragon is one example. Nobody is stopping you from starting one.

>>2153164
There you go, point proven, using "socialism" as some vague catch all for something you don't like. I'm not a socialist myself, but I truly wonder if American education is really this lazy and ideological that almost every American simply doesn't understand what it is, or where it's been used. Sad.

>>2150272
>his or her wealth and property and land
You say that like you assume that anarchism respects the idea of property.

>>2150359
>I think we could make a case for
Stopped reading there. Research anarchism, before you spew garbage like that.

>>2153481
They absolutely could, hell they are even better. But economic pressure can always be applied from capitalistic companies to destroy co-ops. A similar thing can be seen with American peanut butter company Kraft undercutting the Canadian counterpart till it went out of business simply due to the former being the more wealthy one, only for the former to immediately mark up the prices

>>2150449
>property will magically vanish
What is property though?
There is no universal law that enforces your notion of property, so why do you assume that property is universal?
Property is a social construct and as such is is subject to change.
Building a society in which the idea of property is abolished is not a contradiction of some universal law.

Nobody assumes that it will just disappear one day, but working towards a society in which property is forgotten is very much possible.

>>2154065
So when the leaders of all industries are all capitalistic, controlling the government via lobbying, creating one small, medium or even large co-op can't fix this system. One flower doesn't suddenly make a desert an grassland

>>2150971
>Arbitrarily distinguish the concept of property to justify stealing.

Your schemes will not work thief.

>>2154117
Personal property is your phone and car, stuff you use. Private property is stocks and property, stuff you don't use

>>2154123
That's some arbitrary definition if I've ever seen one