Layoffs coming...

blacksun said:
Are you really trying to imply that communist countries don't suffer from those things?

LMFAO they suffer from them even more.

Especially drug and alcohol use.

Russia is almost as fucking drunk as ireland hahaha!

Teen suicide?

Isn't that part of china's national anthem?
Click to expand...

I'm actually not trying to imply anything about communist countries. Those countries are also quite competitive and the people there are in a constant rat race, just like the US.
 
Harrekin said:
You support "libertarian socialism".

The second part by definition implies you did.

Hook the jumper cables up to your ears, it might help start your brain working.
Click to expand...

As much as I disagree with state enforced socialism, I have to agree that socialism doesn't necessary have to be state enforced in theory and that socialism itself isn't the enemy. The forceful application of it is. It would require a perfect world though. In a perfect world any theory could conceivable work.

Maybe some day the human race will end up like blobs of energy who need for nothing, or they will create/discover an energy source that is so awesome and total that every person will be given their every wish. More likely is that this will never happen or we end up like the people in the Matrix in tubes. Granted, I imagine a lot of people would be OK with living in their own private world where they got to be king even if their body was really in a tub of embryonic fluid. That may very well be the closest we come to perfection - giving everyone absolutely their dream world that is changeable to their whim. Would those two count as socialism?
 
abandonconflict said:
I'm actually not trying to imply anything about communist countries. Those countries are also quite competitive and the people there are in a constant rat race, just like the US.
Click to expand...



Got any examples of a country that isn't "competitive" and doesn't suffer from those problems?
 
32326_413581185380021_676219589_n.jpg
 
Rob Roy said:
Libertarian socialism might be possible if everyone of the persons involved were in a consensual agreement. Pass the tea please...mmmm....chocolate.
Click to expand...

Libertarian Socialism and Libertarianism are essentially the same thing. Libertarian being that every person is free to do whatever they please with themselves and their labor/property. Socialism being a description of what they decide to do with it. You would never get 300 million free people to choose socialism willingly, but at the same time if they did then it would be Libertarian Socialism. It isn't possible as human beings are now, and I seriously doubt it would be possible short of them removing every persons ability to resist. It would be still be state imposed at that point though, so.....
 
Harrekin said:
Who in Jehovah's name would actually choose communism?

I'd bet it's the "wont-work" people instead of the "I earn my shit" people.
Click to expand...

If there were 10 people left at the end of the world, they might choose communism/socialism. If it were just my family left, then I can't imagine begrudging them an equal share if they did their best to help out. This would be voluntary, and might be considered Libertarian at the same time since we can all choose to go do something else with ourselves. If everyone were connected and did their part(like the people in Avatar lol), then maybe. However, in real life, this isn't likely to occur.
 
abandonconflict said:
Libertarian Socialism is oxymoronic irony?

Irony? You mean like people who don't bother to understand the arguments of those they disagree with and who claim to be libertarians while remaining totally silent on the questions of the autocratic hierarchies inherent to capitalist relations of production and the exploitativeness of the wage system and then accuse others of being autocratic and stupid?
Click to expand...

Socialism is all of those same things. Exploiting different people, but there is still exploitation happening. There will still always been people who want for something others have. I understand how Libertarianism could be Socialist if it was by free will, and even how it could be a desirable world to live in.

In your Libertarian Socialism, the Libertarian belief in free property and free will without government hindrance would still be there. By your own admission, the Socialist aspect of it would be completely voluntary and without government coercion. This makes it regular Libertarianism in which all the people involved decided to be Socialist. It doesn't change private ownership of the means of production, it would simply mean that the people who own the means of production would WANT to give it up for the greater good and have a contract with everyone as to how it would work. It is very unlikely.

Once you use government force to implement Socialism, it is a evil and black thing that violates the very basics of human rights.
 
Kynes again insists that libertarian socialism is marxist because it requires state to control means of production. That is state socialism. That is not libertarian socialism. So now he redefines socialism to intrinsically mean that the state controls means of production which means therefore that socialism is synonymous with communism and that any philosophy which includes this word is by definition Marxist/communist. Kynes repeatedly ignores that libertarian socialism is a philosophy in which state does not control means of production because libertarian socialists are not statists. Kynes goes on to think he can redefine all philosophies which include the words democratic, anarcho and progressive, as Marxist. They aren't Marxist, they are simply anti-Randist.

Kynes is a Randist.

Ayn Rand collected social security.
 
abandonconflict said:
I have explained it, and I have dropped links. I have explained it in great detail, at your request, more than once Kynes. I did so with out sarcasm or dickish undertones. You have shown time and again that you have no interest in reading anything you didn't write yourself. You have twisted my words and distorted my arguments. You have been nothing but disrespectful. I don't care to convice you of anything at this point, I'm only going to keep doing my thing, which includes reminding you what a colossally obtuse and facile moron you are. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism


Here comes another "THAT IS JUST MARXISM!" from Kynes. He alternates between "That is Marxism" and "explain it for me again". I know how this goes, if it doesn't toe the Rand line he will play the same tactics.
 
Dr Kynes said:
you may deride and wail that a tiny Ayn Rand lives in my head and gives me instructions of how to live, but this does not absolve you of the obligation to actuall explain what "Libertarian Socialism" IS,, beyond the fervvent and contradictory statements describing what it IS NOT.
Click to expand...

Please go on about my obligations to you.
483498_414302091974597_1759390626_n.jpg
 
Dr Kynes said:
you havve the same fundamental misunderstanding as abandonitellect with regards to the nature of socialism. i shall lay it out again:

Socialism: a system in which the STATE controls the economy, and all economic activity, and the STATE owns the "Means of Production" (which is factories,, farms mills, mines, timberlands, etc etc etc. all resource gathering and all industry) and the people serve the STATE as the STATE dictates, in such jobs and industries as the STATE requires.

Communism: a system in which NOBODY owns the "Means of Production" there is no economy, and all things are shared equally by everyone. the STATE exists solely to protect the society as a whole from violence and intrusion from outside(since inside its all puppies rainbows and free blowjobs) the people are free to do as they wish, and to aspire to any dream, as they all pull together for the common good of all mankind....

Libertarianism: a system in which the person is sovereign, and does as he desires within the framework of established societal norms and a code of behavior, usually governed by laws. every person may own anything, and do with it as he pleases, provided his actions do not infringe on the liberties of others. should a dispute arise, the issue is settled by means of a jury of peers and a decision which is considered binding on both parties. contracts are sacred if entered into willingly, and a deal is a deal.

Anarchy: total breakdown of all social structures. disputes are settled by violence, and the guy with the biggest gang of bravos and sellswords eventually becomes the king.


back in the 40's the ideas of marx were catching on in the mush filled brains of dreamers and utopians. they believed the SOCIALIST authoritarian dictatorships of mussolini, stalin hitler and franco were simply, as marx described, a temporay measure to secure the marxist revolution, and they would eventually lead to stateless utopian communism word wide.

the opponents of marxism needed a rallying cry, but "socialism" didnt have negative connotations, it was too much like High Society, Social Gatherings Social Graces, etc etc etc. it was just too positive. Communism however was fairly dripping with hard consonants, and sinister shadowy undertones, and thus, Socialists were renamed Communists, and harmless woolyheaded dreamers who were actually communists went off looking for a new thing to call themselves now that their name had been dragged through the Socialist mud.

thats why pea-brains like abandonintellect get all pissy if yuo call them communists, shit themselves if you call them marxists, and demand that you apopply their self-selected, non-descriptive, inaccurate, and ever-changing label wich usually starts with "Anarcho-" or "Democratic-" or "Libertarian-" or "Progressive-".

They are still just looking for a new "Brand" to sell their marxism under a new label. even the good parts of marxism are heavily stained with the vile and oppressive regimes of the socialist movement, so they will never admit that they are in fact Marxists.
Click to expand...

I seriously hope you are not even beginning to suggest that I support Socialism as a government or believe it is ok. I am sure most here would agree with me when I say I am very Libertarian in my views. Did you even read my statements? Socialism could be without government backing if the private owners wished it. It isn't likely or even probable, but it isn't impossible. In the right situation it could possibly happen in some form. I am 100% property rights. Capitalism isn't a type of government, and neither is Socialism. They are types of economies. Libertarianism in government and Socialism in economy are not at odds if it isn't by government mandate. People can simply decide to be socialist with their own goods. It is almost impossible, but not entirely. I am sure much of what we do now on a every day basis would be 'impossible' when viewed by the people of the 1600's. To believe we might not change in the next 400 years to a point where we really wouldn't understand it is a pretty short sighted view. That being said: I will never again vote for a person who believes in state that forces Statism, Socialism, or Fascism on us. It just won't be. However, it is peoples rights to be Socialist if they want as long as they don't FORCE it on others. I must espouse this view because quite simply it is demanded by my Libertarian views of the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top