Talk:Libertarian socialism

Comments

SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.

This applies to the western economic order as well. There's nothing fundamental in "Capitalism" (Whatever that may be) that prevents "producers" from possessing political power or owning the means of production and distributing goods. Conversely it is of course possible in the western order that investors own productive means and have management and labor force work for them without holding shares themselves.

So either we agree that capitalism and socialism are the same thing, or this definition of socialism is particularly bogus. While I personally am of the opinion that utopian communism would look indistinguishable from a free-market driven capitalist economy, lets go with the "bogus" idea, since most socialists don't understand anything more about western economy than that it's BAD BAD BAD.

Alternative definition: In socialism, the means of production are owned by the collective of people who use them. Which means: everybody, since consumers and suppliers have just as many stakes in a particular business as the workers there, and so forth. So there we go, state socialism - as far removed from libertarian/anarchist ideas as it gets.

We could go for another alternative where the workers in particular own the means of production, and note that management is also part of the workforce there. But who would create a new factory for example? Who would provide the money required to build it? And who would decide what kind of factory would be built? And where? These are questions that only lead to two logical conclusions: Fully fledged capitalism, where investors offer money for projects of their choosing against interest, and fully fledged state socialism where the state offers money for projects of their choosing.

The free market isn't an institution that is created by anyone, the "free market" is nothing less but the sum of economical behaviour of people in absence of powerful interference (such as the state or the artificially big conglomerates - neither are a product of the free market). Anyone seeking to establish alternatives to the free market thus seeks to create state or conglomerate interference with private economic decisions - which is the complete opposite to what anarchism wants.

Anyone not completely and utterly in favor of the free market is not an anarchist. Big full stop. Anyone who opposes the free market is necessarily a state socialist or conglomerate oligarchist, and envisions schemes in which the organs representing the collective or conglomerates are inclined and capable of unproductively interfering with individualistic and private behavior.

The anarchic nation is not an oxymoron - only to socialists who confuse anarchism with communism and are convinced that communism cannot exist as long as there are alternative places in the world to go to. The anarchic state prevents its organs and citizens from forcing authority on other individual members (but conversely does not prevent individuals from freely accepting someone as an authority - a fascist commune inside the anarchic nation is easily imaginable, just as long as all individuals inside the fascist commune are free to leave the fascist commune any time.

An anarchic nation should allow for collectivist endeavours inside itself, initiated by and chosen so by the very private people who want to live in the commune for example. A family unit (be it a hippie commune or nuclear by variety) is nothing but a small collectivist unit inside a society. Similiarly, modern liberal democracies allow for various schemes of collectivist companies. It is simply that these are not usually as successful as schemes such as joint stock corporations which have a very simple and transparent method for acquiring funds.

If the "working class" (whoever that may be) has to be in "control", in any different form from what it is now, the state would need to prevent people from forming joint stock companies. That means, the state would prevent people from doing something they would really like to do. That has nothing to do with individual liberty and everything with enforcing ones particular lifestyle onto others.

Socialists are the mortal enemies of anarchists. "Anarchosyndicalists" and "Libertarian socialists" have nothing to do with anarchism and everything with undermining legitimate libertarian endeavours to maximize individual freedom.

Of course this has a history, but ultimately it's about socialists sabotaging (dumb) anarchists by telling them lies such as capitalism being unanarchistic, or socialism somehow working without a higher instance deciding everything. It's about marxist-leninists trying to destroy and subvert a legitimately anti-marxist movement that wasn't quick enough to understand how fundamentally opposed marxism is to anarchism. These socialists need to be exposed for what they are: Enemies of anarchism that try to sabotage anarchism.

This Marxist infiltration of anarchism is directly responsible for creation of the ludicrious anarcho-capitalist dogma that blames the state for everything bad in the world. Anarchism isn't anti-state, it's anti-authority over individuals. And any sort of collectivism necessitates authority over its individuals.

Fuck you commie assholes. And fuck you stupid "anarchists" who don't understand a lick of what communism and anarchism are actually about.

ppreus kdb3

ZkcgTUJO hoyjHAJru cepdtlewnz FYQpAfdwj ttbfop UarCWLRUthk DkaeNCZH pqdiMOVah DkmyOBVD krgcQGKhn

qmcvbw wif6

LbasBRBY bnfxWUQpg qjyfwpnbjp MKPjWfzjl aaeccy LibHBXRSsax JslnSKVK aaenXWAmb TykmTWKB mpaxOFJnq