Libertarianism Is A Reaction Against Capitalism And Doesn't Even Realize It

[Outinleftfield]

I'm a Marxist but I'm posting this here, because I want to hear some opinions from libertarians(For the purposes here I mean the 'libertarian' capitalists).

In a way libertarians are a lot like us. When it began a lot of the anger was against the War in Vietnam and War on Drugs. What libertarians fail to realize is that both of these things were caused by capitalism.

Libertarians reify the concept of capitalism, turning it into an ideal in and of itself, while ignoring the material factors that make up capitalism.

The reason for this is the intense cold war propaganda at the time equating socialism with government tyranny and capitalism with freedom. People noticed things that were wrong, noticed that many of these things involved government intervention and then blamed "socialism".

But in reality these actions came from capitalism. Money influenced the Vietnam War and the war on drugs. The war on drugs furthermore was based on bourgeois puritanical values.

I was a libertarian when I was younger. Back then I bought into the mainstream definitions of socialism and capitalism. Then I read some socialist literature and discovered what these terms actually meant.

In a lot of ways socialists and libertarians are similar. In general socialists tend to support civil liberty and social liberty, opposing death penalties, torture, supporting due process, opposing the war on drugs, supporting gay rights. The main difference is on economic liberty. Libertarians will say they are the ones supporting economic liberty but it is a flawed concept of economic liberty perpetrated by the bourgeoisie that they support. True economic liberty can only be realized in socialism. It is not liberty when the only choice is to work for a wage or starve. It is not liberty when some people can make a profit off of surplus labor without working themselves and other people only retain a small part of the value of their labor. Liberty requires not just being allowed to do things it also requires that you have access to the necessary resources.

One other thing I notice about libertarians is they seem to think having a legal right will automatically translate into a right in fact. One libertarian I talked with said that we could get rid of all laws against chemical spills, because people would still have property rights(including to themselves) and could sue for any damage. Completely misses the material reality that 1. these companies can hire armies of lawyers. and 2. they would just treat it as an operating cost much like they do with the fines they get now. Also misses a consideration of psychology, when people are punished with potential fines or lawsuits they actually become more careless if they have the money to affoard it because it eliminates guilt, they rationalize to themselves that since they'll have to "pay it back" it's OK. This happened at an Israeli day care center. The parents left their kids even later and more often when they started making them pay fines for leaving their kids too late.

[IcarusAngel]

I actually take the view that Libertarians are one of the most reactionary, ultraconservative groups in existence. The idea that discrimination and seclusion is the basis of prosperity I think is a recipe for disaster and for crimes against humanity (notice Hoppe's targets for "seclusion from the Libertarian social order" were also Hitler's targets: homosexuals, democrats, socialists, the retarded, and other political and ethnic minorities), as is their idea that a series of property owners get to control land based on spurious ownership titles and legal contracts, protected either by bizarre "PDAs" or "insurance agencies." Libertarianism would be a tyrant's dream and lawyer's paradise.

All this does is shows that they believe that property owners could inflict pain or death on their subjects at any moment with the workers only having the choice to accept it or move to another private tyranny; it would be like living in a mad house.

Also, I notice if you read the "market anarchists'" websites a lot of their shit has been debunked even in bourgeois economics centuries ago: such as that market anarchism is the proper way to distribute wealth (disproven in the 1800s; there is no proper way to distribute wealth, as the supposed laws apply to production not distribution), that if people wanted things like natural parks they would automatically arise in the market somehow (blatantly contradicts common sense and empirical evidence), and that markets wouldn't form monopolies as they would exist under "ideal conditions" (this has been disproven by the GreenWaold-Stiglitz theorem, and these "ideal conditions" will never exist). Ironically, "market anarchism" rests upon discredited economics and logical fallacies.

Finally, Rothbardian Libertarianism populism (such as that the women's movement was driven by women Jew Lesbians, that there's a "scientific conspiracy" to withhold data on racial theories, etc.) and all these Jewish banker conspiracy theories are beyond disgusting and do not even merit refutation.

Why we on the left keep playing with this cranks is beyond me, but I think we do it to our own peril.

This is an outline of Libertarianism that in my experience rings true:


I'm working on a new page for my site. Here's a preliminary version, for comment, criticism and suggestions.

What Is Libertarianism?
It's obvious that definitions of libertarianism by opponents are prone to bias. By the same standard, self-serving definitions by proponents are also prone to bias. The simple solution is to present multiple viewpoints, each true to some degree, to construct a picture of the whole. The story of The Blind Men and the Elephant illustrates how ridiculous clinging to a single viewpoint can be, and how building a more realistic picture would require critical acceptance of multiple viewpoints. Viewpoints of proponents of libertarianism are well known; here are some viewpoints of opponents.

* A Rhetoric Of Liberty

Libertarianism is united only by a rhetoric of liberty. "Liberty" is the central glittering generality of libertarian propaganda.

Who can reject "liberty"? That makes it a powerful rhetorical tool; as long as you don't start getting specific. Different people have different ideas of liberty, and can divide over those issues. The defense against attempts to get specific is "equal liberty", but that rhetoric also begs important questions. We all might have equal liberty to kill each other, but do we want such liberty?

"Liberty" unspecified is vague enough to justify any atrocity. We routinely see libertarians promoting Barry Goldwater's "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." In the name of liberty, John Galt plans genocides dwarfing those of Communist states in "Atlas Shrugged". In actual history, liberty to own slaves was a frequent claim. Liberty to head your own family and religious liberty excused beating wives and disobedient children, sometimes fatally.

"Liberty" is the rhetorical tool of choice that unites libertarians: it can back any claim they make, no matter how bizarre. Libertarians have no single claim in common except this rhetoric, and they can gloss over their conflicting beliefs through the persuasion of their own rhetoric of liberty.

* A Rightwing Populist Movement In Miniature

While libertarians may profess socially left ideas such as freedom of choice, their right-conservatism becomes obvious if you ask them what parts of the right-wing economic agenda they'd be willing to sacrifice to realize their left social goals. They just won't give up their opposition to government and taxation, nor will they give up their allegiance to absolute property. No matter what social goals you propose in exchange.

* A Childish Selfishness

Libertarianism is a tiny movement of people who primarily want (a) to freeload on society by not contributing their share (b) to avoid social prohibitions and (c) want to lock in their good fortune. It's really that simple: all the supposed philosophy is really just after-the-fact (post hoc) rationalization. Everything springs from the childish "I don't wanna pay", "I wanna do that anyhow" and "no, it's mine!"

* A Catspaw For Corporations

A great deal of libertarian literature is written by corporate hirelings. Sure they can throw in the occasional socially liberal complaint about warmongering to genuflect towards the purported ideology, but they do NOT bite the corporate hand that feeds them. Otherwise they'd be pointing out that corporations are government creations of special privilege, and asking that they be abolished the way they ask that public schools be abolished. And those authors would be looking for new jobs, as we've seen so often from think-tanks. Professional libertarians tend to be reliant on the corporate right-wing welfare employment of think-tanks, lobbying and astroturf organizations.

The liberty these corporate hirelings write of is generally the liberty desired by corporations, not the liberty desired by ordinary people. Hence we see propaganda such as the "Index of Economic Freedoms".

* A Long-Running Public Relations Campaign

The extent of libertarianism today is largely the result of decades-long public relations campaigns that have been working on insinuating libertarian ideas throughout our society. The time, the ambition and the resources applied over the past 60 years are extraordinary. Generations of propagandists, scholars, lobbyists, think-tanks, astroturf organizations and political parties have been financed by large corporations and billionaires.

They have attempted (quite successfully) to subvert the language, to pack propaganda into textbooks and academic publications, to subvert science (smoking, pollution and global warming), to create intellectual shock troops to disperse their propaganda, to stack the legal system with specially trained judges, to direct politicians with think-tank plans and offers of revolving-door employment, and a host of other activities.

Because "he who pays the piper calls the tunes", the result is that libertarianism has benefitted major corporations and billionaires far more than it has benefitted the middle-class pot smoker (now approaching lower class.)

* Philosophical Fairytales

There are three dominant libertarian fairytales. They are natural rights, the Nozickian night-watchman state, and Objectivism. All three are non-positivist: they are not founded on observable facts and just plain make stuff up that contradicts what's known of reality. Each has produced large, complicated apologetics that attempt to explain away their myriad failings. Like science, they create models, but unlike science their models cannot be validated because they presume the unobservable.

Most libertarian authors rely on natural rights.[1] Natural rights were originally invented to oppose stories such as rights of kings. They are "nonsense on stilts" that is as popular, insubstantial and unprovable as souls.

The supposedly just and non-coercive Nozickian minimal state of Anarchy, State and Utopia is notorious for its failure to justify initial acquisition of property, the basis of the entire scheme. The whole thing appeals to gut feelings as fallaciously as Steven Colbert does, starting with the first sentence: "Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights.)"

Objectivism starts with the fairytale of a priori knowledge. "A is A", for example. But that doesn't work for the real world, because the real world has time: A at time 1 is not necessarily the same as A at time 2. It's never the same water in the river, and even protons can spontaneously decay. There is no supposed a priori knowledge that doesn't have this basic sort of problem.

* A Justification of Personal Righteousness

Which emphasizes the notion of virtue in selfishness and has as its historical genesis the exceptional American experience. As such, it appeals mostly to white American males who are moderately above-average in intelligence, economically secure, independently-minded, and prefer simplistic theoretical constructs for making political and moral decisions. It validates their own affluence/privilege not by group affiliation, but by inherent individual merit; and it likewise superficially validates the poverty and lack of privilege of others not on the basis of group affiliation, but inherent fault. In this it mimics a meritocratic view, which allows the libertarian to congratulate himself on his lack of bigotry; but, in fact, it is a facade behind which his true bigotry hides. Keith M Ellis

* A Simplistic Ideology

Kevin Carson calls this "vulgar libertarianism": "Them pore ole bosses need all the help they can get." Simple rules for identifying friends and enemies, righteous and unrighteous. Private or public? Statist or freedom loving? Individualist or collectivist? Market or coercive? Ignorant or enlightened? Libertarians portray themselves as elite because of their ideological righteousness: but they are really just the bosses favorites, the house slaves. Read some Atlas Shrugged to learn that mentality.

* A Blinkered Ideology

Libertarianism is often easy to recognize by the things it will not consider. For example: market failures, public goods, benefits from government, benefits from spending tax money, deadweight costs from private sources, threats to liberty from private sources, rights other than property rights, values other than economic values, social harms from private actions (such as drug usage), anything but methodological individualism, Keynesianism, etc.

Shunning these ideas is essential for "consistency" in the beliefs of many libertarians. If you don't admit contrary data, your theory is unfalsifiable.

* A Cargo Cult

Many libertarians expect gifts from the sky if they perform the right philosophical rituals: surrender of political rights, surrender of all government property claims, etc.

They wish us to hand over political sovereignty of the richest, most powerful nation in the world. They wish us to hand over the lands, roads, and other property held in common by the government. They wish us to hand over the biggest pot of money in the world: social security funds for the retirement of essentially the entire US population.

What do they offer the rest of us for these enormous gifts? Nothing. They do not expect us to do it as an exchange, but as a magical summoning. They summon these gifts magically by re-interpreting liberal philosophy and Constitutions.

* A Millennialist Cult

Many libertarians think they can promise pie-in-the-sky in libertarian heaven. In the libertarian future we would all be amply repaid for having had the faith to bring about the fabulously free and wealthy libertopia where the privately owned streets are paved with gold, a gun in every pot field, etc. They have the unrealistic assumption that if they succeed, they will have an advantage because they learned libertarian principles first. But in reality, a class of oligarchs would quickly form as they did in Russia, leaving the majority in much worse condition. The large middle classes we enjoy are a result of government programs promoting equality. They do not occur otherwise.

* Technological Utopianism

Much libertarian literature relies on technology to create their fantasy world, usually by creating a new frontier. Heinlein and others relied on space travel to open a new frontier. Transhumanists look forward to recreating humans to develop new frontiers. Many libertarian authors write of a forthcoming singularity in technological development. Seasteaders look forwards to marine frontiers in international waters. Rand relied on fictional technology to conceal Galt's community.

What they all miss is that creation of a new frontier doesn't change those left behind into a libertarian society. And as the frontier matures, density and competition will bring about the same problems that led to the governance that libertarians object to, the same as happened in other frontiers in the past. Libertarianism might "work" on the edges of expansion, but creates problems that grow until a government solution is needed.

* Conclusion

No one libertarian exemplifies all of these viewpoints, nor do any of these viewpoints match all libertarians. There might be a libertarian who doesn't match any of these viewpoints.

But it is easy to find libertarians who are well-described by any these characterizations. A large, diverse ideology such as libertarianism requires large, diverse description the same way blind men describing an elephant used a lot of analogies.

Some of these characterizations are repulsive: hurrah for the libertarian who avoids matching the repulsive ones. There aren't too many of them in print because the vast majority of libertarian authors are sponsored by corporate funding (especially the Koch brothers) or rely on philosophical fairytales. A great many libertarians are repulsed by each other for one or more of these problems.

* References

1 David Boaz, Libertarianism: A Primer pp.82-87

[RGacky3]

I kind of disagree, partially, some Libertarians are a reaction against Capitalism, they've just bought into the anti-social propeganda and the idea that markets work, those are the ones you'll see up in arms mostly against wars, social-controll laws, and the such. Their attitudes are more along the lines of "don't tell me waht to do." Or "if it does'nt hurt anyone I should be able to do it." Generally those types don't have any beef against unions or community groups.

Then you have the ones whos main goal is to do away with ANYTHING that helps the poor, ANYTHING that empowers the poor, and they always defend corporations. These types I think have some sort of power complex, they are the types that were bullied in school and in turn came home and bullied their little brother/sister, they were the types that always wanted to be the "cool kid" but never could make it, so they always looked up to them and looked down on others.

These are the types in jobs that idolize their boss, and treat him with absolute reverense, then yell at the waiter in a restaurant. They are like the pharisees in Jesus' day, that sucked up to Roman authority said "we have no king but cesar," but treated the poor in their society as if they were not even Human.

I seriously think the latter group has nothing to do with ideoloy, anarcho-capitalist ideology is easy to disproove, its been done over and over again.

If you listen to how they talk, their utter disdain for poor people and reverance for rich, you'll see, thats what its all about. They have a chip on their shoulder, they have power complexes.

[Lt. Ferret]

libertarians base their morals on ownership of self and the principles of non-aggression. thats about where it ends. none of this dumb shit that i just read.

theres nothing childish about "no, its mine!" when they expended their labor on it. id say its more childish to look at something YOU had no part of and say "no, its mine!"

[RGacky3]

theres nothing childish about "no, its mine!" when they expended their labor on it. id say its more childish to look at something YOU had no part of and say "no, its mine!"

Thats what Capitalists doo ....


libertarians base their morals on ownership of self and the principles of non-aggression. thats about where it ends. none of this dumb shit that i just read.


Whatever they base their morals on, what I was writing about was the attitude that bleeds out of many libertarians.

[Revolution starts with U]

No Lt. That's specifically the an-cap tradition of libertarianism. I"m pretty sure Objectivism outright rejects ancap non-aggression.
And they don't claim "no its mine" because they labored on it. Libertarians, in general, outright reject the LTV. They cry "it's mine" because they claim ownership through investment, etc.

[PoliticalNightmare]

I don't think the likes of Glenn Beck and Fox News are a reaction against capitalism somehow.

[Rafiq]

Libertarian Capitalism is contradiction in terms

[Burn A Flag]

In my experience with libertarians, most of them share hatred for welfare, public healthcare, and affirmative action. They believe that the free market economy is god and that social programmes steal their money and are unfair. They definitely mostly share the sentiment that the poor are lazy. They feel like the rich work hard and they also generally think Obama is a socialist and that the center of the world's problems are from socialism. It's quite sad some of the arguements they produce about how Obamacare is socialism, then when i prove it's not, they say he's thinking about implementing socialist policies.

[Outinleftfield]

Of course I was speaking of the origins of the libertarian movement. This might not apply to the objectivist influence as Ayn Rand was held up by the establishment even in the 1950s as an example of a good anti-communist Russian defector fighting for capitalism, and her rhetoric was primarily used to illustrate the conditions in Russia in order to portray communism in a negative light.

Although the libertarian movement in its heyday realized as a concrete movement in society started as anger over the Vietnam War(particularly the faction that split off from the Young Americans for Freedom that was against the war), and it's pro-legalization stance attracted a lot of the drug movement, and anger over exorbitant government expeditures in the military and corporate subsidizing were initially primary the very nature of the libertarian movement(ideologizing "capitalism", opposing any government intervention(besides property protection), and failing to critique the bourgeois concept of "property rights") made it easy for the capitalist class to use it as a funnel for shifting anti-establishment resentment into a movement that ironically strengthens the establishment. So over time the libertarian movement especially the Libertarian Party began focusing more and more on tax issues, opposing affirmative action, and opposing welfare. As well as opposition to gun control, which I oppose to since any measure to limit arms to the establishment's police and military apparatus hurts the working class but it's unquestionable that in this country the culture of the gun rights movement is oriented strongly to the right and enmeshed with some of the most extreme right-wing ideologies, and this exploitation of "libertarianism" by the right is what lead to a shift in the libertarian movement's focus. It's even gotten to the point where with some intellectual twisting you have libertarians for closed borders even though years ago this would've been unthinkable within the libertarian community, since immigration is "non-coercive". We've gotten to the point of the "Tea Party Movement" which drapes conservatism both economic and even strangely enough national security and social conservatism in "libertarian" rhetoric.

At times people notice the negative effects of capitalism without realizing that capitalism is the source and even keeping some of bourgeois ideology. The result is new political movements which claim the mantle of radicalism and claim to oppose the establishment and the status quo, but which can easily be turned by the capitalist class into movements to strengthen the capitalist system.

Even some so-called "socialist" movements have been used by the capitalist class in this way, particularly "social democracy" in Europe which advocates "mixed economy", failing to see that capitalism as a whole is alienating and exploitative. An even more extreme example are the fascist and nazi movements both which claimed to be forms of socialism which in reality used the full force of the state against workers and for the benefit of the upper crust of the bourgeoisie.

[Lobotomy]

I don't think the likes of Glenn Beck and Fox News are a reaction against capitalism somehow.

That's not libertarian, that's neoconservative. True right wing libertarians detest GB/Fox/Palin etc. because they advocate big government for certain things like military exploits, while libertarians advocate small government with a capitalist economy (as if the state and capitalists could ever not be in bed with each other :rolleyes:)

But for the most part I agree with the OP's point. I have a relative who is constantly showing passionate concern for the state of the third world, but then she advocates free market capitalism. It drives me up the wall.

[RGacky3]

Glenn Beck is not neoconservative, there are neocons on fox but Glenn Beck is'nt one of them.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

...some Libertarians are a reaction against Capitalism, they've just bought into the anti-social propeganda and the idea that markets work, those are the ones you'll see up in arms mostly against wars, social-controll laws, and the such.

Libertarians who sound like progressives believe that all of the abuses of capitalism are in fact perpetrated by government. So they will insist that big government is a tool of money and the corporations -- lobbying the puppet pols at home and killing the innocents abroad -- but that it will all be better when we abolish Medicare and funding for education and terminate our Social Security.

[RGacky3]

but that it will all be better when we abolish Medicare and funding for education and terminate our Social Security.

THey arn't all like that, but the loudest ones and most of them are.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

libertarians base their morals on ownership of self and the principles of non-aggression. thats about where it ends. none of this dumb shit that i just read.

theres nothing childish about "no, its mine!" when they expended their labor on it. id say its more childish to look at something YOU had no part of and say "no, its mine!"

Well, I think the really childish point in this argument is how, despite being the basis for a significant political philospohy, it is extremely badly thought out.

Consider their principles of "non aggression" - from a communist, the forcing of capitalist property relations is extremely aggressive, I certainly don't want to be forced to respect capitalist property!

In which case, how can they claim that a libertarian society would not involve force? Clearly it would on anyone who disagreed with the liberatarian creed in its totality.

[Lt. Ferret]

im not a libertarian im just reasonably adept at playing devil's advocate, my wife is a minarchist.

[Lobotomy]

Glenn Beck is not neoconservative, there are neocons on fox but Glenn Beck is'nt one of them.

What would you call him, then?

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

THey arn't all like that, but the loudest ones and most of them are.

I've been around only some of them, so I can't generalize, although I have been reading their online stuff for years. (I like their sometimes interesting anti-war articles.)

If we're talking about "libertarians" in the standard American sense -- the free market minarchists and anarcho-capitalists -- I haven't encountered any who don't want to scrap things like Social Security along with the empire, although aside from the anarcho-capitalists, most seem to think that public schools for the little ones are okay to have.

"Government is always an evil, so let's get rid of as much of it as possible" is the premise of the nation's libertarians.

[Comrade_Stalin]

We've gotten to the point of the "Tea Party Movement" which drapes conservatism both economic and even strangely enough national security and social conservatism in "libertarian" rhetoric.

Even some so-called "socialist" movements have been used by the capitalist class in this way, particularly "social democracy" in Europe which advocates "mixed economy", failing to see that capitalism as a whole is alienating and exploitative. An even more extreme example are the fascist and nazi movements both which claimed to be forms of socialism which in reality used the full force of the state against workers and for the benefit of the upper crust of the bourgeoisie.

I think that this is more helpful then the your main post.

[RGacky3]

What would you call him, then?

A Libertarian/conservative, one of his opinions is that the US should pull out its military our from the world. But he's also insane.

[Jimmie Higgins]

In a way libertarians are a lot like us. When it began a lot of the anger was against the War in Vietnam and War on Drugs. What libertarians fail to realize is that both of these things were caused by capitalism.

I think this is an interesting point - I'd agree to the extent that what attracts many people - particularly petty-bourgeois professionals - is the emphasis on personal liberty. Some people I've spoken to seem to have a total disconnect between their libertarian social and economic ideas while others that emphasize the personal freedom aspects of libertarianism cynically believe that only business and the market are the only "realistic" options and so libertarianism follows that logic out to its conclusion.

However, I think within the context of the attack on working people since the 1970s, libertarian ideas have been promoted by some as a way to make pro-corporate legislation more attractive. The capitalists were very frank in the late 1960s and through the 1970s that the old kind of (pre-civil rights, new left) conservatism was totally unpopular and outmoded and so they sought to find ways to make pro-business policies attractive to people. So they sought to link things like evangelical movement, southern white racism, gun control issues, and - with libertarianism - personal freedoms to a program of ending "entitlements", rolling back reforms, and giving more power to business. This has been the politics of the Republicans since Regan (really beginning with the silent majority and southern strategy of Nixon) and for the Democrats since the 1980s and the New Democrats.

Never the less, your points do apply to many of the people who are attracted to these ideas. They identify socialism/communism with the USSR and so they "know" they don't want that, but they still realize that capitalism is not the "end of history" and the perfect system it's "supposed to be" in everyday reality of the US. But in the end they are dupes... their support and the spreading of these ideas has allowed politicians to advance the pro-corporate agenda (and fight for "personal rights" but the personal rights have all been for corporations) while social freedoms supported by libertarians never seem to make it onto the schedule!

I think one thing the left needs to do is re-claim the mantle of individual rights and freedom. The workers in the Russian Revolution enacted more personal freedom than any capitalist class ever has (outside the emancipation proclamation anyway) by ending Russia's involvement in WWI, getting rid of laws restricting the rights of Jews and homosexuals, liberalizing marriage and divorce and so on. I have a knee-jerk reaction against the kind of individualism that's fetishized in the US, but only because I know it's bullshit and often because "individualism" is counter-posed to collective action or class politics (like, don't protest the war: buy a Prius and stop using oil or vote for an anti-war politician or sign a petition). But really I think the stance of radical socialists and anarchists has always been for total personal freedom and liberty - it's just that we realize that you can't have personal freedom and economic dictatorship at the same time. In order for us to live freely as individuals, we have to collectively reorganize society to allow real democracy in the social sphere as well as at our work and in the economy. When no one person or minority class of people can make us loose our livelihood, put us into debt, or take our homes from us; when we are not daily wage-slaves dependent on a system we do not control; then our personal lives will be truly free to do with as we want.

[MMIKEYJ]

As a libertarian, and probably more specifically a constitutionalist I think that there are just going to be certain things we just dont see eye to eye... I can believe in natural rights, and in property ownership and making a profit off of other peoples' labor and while I do all that it fits into my concept of what liberty is about...

I know most of the communists on board here would abhor these same things (at least the ones in this thread who indicated) and show these same concepts as proof of why we need communism and not capitalism, etc..

I think we just have to agree to disagree.

[Budguy68]

..
In a way libertarians are a lot like us. When it began a lot of the anger was against the War in Vietnam and War on Drugs. What libertarians fail to realize is that both of these things were caused by capitalism.[/QUOTE]


The anger is against the Government. You know that thing you gusy want to hand all authority and power too..




But in reality these actions came from capitalism. Money influenced the Vietnam War and the war on drugs. The war on drugs furthermore was based on bourgeois puritanical values.

power as well. Government wants power. They want to be able to tell us what to do.




In a lot of ways socialists and libertarians are similar. In general socialists tend to support civil liberty and social liberty, opposing death penalties, torture, supporting due process, opposing the war on drugs, supporting gay rights. The main difference is on economic liberty. Libertarians will say they are the ones supporting economic liberty but it is a flawed concept of economic liberty perpetrated by the bourgeoisie that they support. True economic liberty can only be realized in socialism. It is not liberty when the only choice is to work for a wage or starve. It is not liberty when some people can make a profit off of surplus labor without working themselves and other people only retain a small part of the value of their labor. Liberty requires not just being allowed to do things it also requires that you have access to the necessary resources.

Work is a requirement to survive. You can't just Sit on your butt all day and expect to live. Its either you work or you starve.

Even if we had a communist system we would still be required to work. We would still have a supervision tellign us what to do and how to do it . The difference is that You Get Paid by Need. So if someone at work did less work then you but had greater Needs that other person would get "paid" more.

You claim that I am a wage slave when in fact Iam writting to you from work....

Also by making Essentials Free to everyone you are enslaving everyone at the same time because now people would be forced provide for each other.

You have no idea what a Libertarian is. Libertarians don't want other people to pay for their essentials and they also don't want to pay for other people's essentials.

[RGacky3]

You know that thing you gusy want to hand all authority and power too..


No ....


power as well. Government wants power. They want to be able to tell us what to do.


So do Corporations :), except they only will use it for profit.


Work is a requirement to survive. You can't just Sit on your butt all day and expect to live. Its either you work or you starve.



Unless your a Capitalist.


We would still have a supervision tellign us what to do and how to do it . The difference is that You Get Paid by Need. So if someone at work did less work then you but had greater Needs that other person would get "paid" more.


No you would'nt, you ever heard of democracy? Mutual aid? Consensus democracy? Look it up.


You claim that I am a wage slave when in fact Iam writting to you from work....



Does your Boss know about that???


Also by making Essentials Free to everyone you are enslaving everyone at the same time because now people would be forced provide for each other.


Well now your forced to provide for the rich now.


You have no idea what a Libertarian is. Libertarians don't want other people to pay for their essentials and they also don't want to pay for other people's essentials.

They would rather pay and work for corporate profits.

In short, like you, they are people who just like to suck up to power.

[Budguy68]

Thats what Capitalists doo ....



Whatever they base their morals on, what I was writing about was the attitude that bleeds out of many libertarians.


If it came down to it a real capitlist would use guns to protect their stuff. And we're pretty good shots.

Anyways, I imagien you work out.

And You know that to have a good work out you must have an intense and hard work out. During a set You have to go on even if the body is screaming for you to stop. not only that but you also have to eat healthy and what not.

Now let me ask you this.
What if Muscle Gain and Fat burned was socialize thoughout all the people at the gym? And that no matter how hard or how easy your workout is your gains would be the same. Gains in fact would depend on how everyone worked out as a whole. And people who work out very little because they hardly show up and dont really care about improving themselves as much as you do would still have the same gains as you.

Would this be a better system?
Would you consider this fair?

[RGacky3]

If it came down to it a real capitlist would use guns to protect their stuff. And we're pretty good shots.


yeah, but theres way way less of you (well not you, because your a worker), then there are of us, but thats fine, if the only property protection is you, then thats fine, if we need your stuff we'll take it.


And You know that to have a good work out you must have an intense and hard work out. During a set You have to go on even if the body is screaming for you to stop.

No you don't, its better to stop short of failure and be able to do another set :).


Now let me ask you this.
What if Muscle Gain and Fat burned was socialize thoughout all the people at the gym? And that no matter how hard or how easy your workout is your gains would be the same. Gains in fact would depend on how everyone worked out as a whole. And people who work out very little because they hardly show up and dont really care about improving themselves as much as you do would still have the same gains as you.

Would this be a better system?
Would you consider this fair?

That does'nt make any sense, because pysical training, is physical, its a 100% personal activity and does'nt effect anyone else.

Heres what I would be in favor of, public gyms :), or at least public training areas, so that staying strong would be available to anyone that wants too, money should be kept out of health.

But socialism is'nt about everyone getting the same thing, its about a democratic economy, training is a 100% personal endevor, economics is be definition a social one, which is why it should be treated as a social endevor, I think personal desicions should be personal (whether or not you want to be strong is a personal one), and collective desicions should be make collectively (such as what are we going to do with the land, that we all need).

[Budguy68]

So do Corporations :), except they only will use it for profit.

No Government likes money too. Havent you notice how government workers give themselves full benefit plus 6 figure salaries? Not to mention you have all these buerocrates nto working. They make their money though taxation. Dumb people believe in high taxes because they actually think it goes to benefit the needy when in fact most of it goes into the hands of lazy buerocrates.




Unless your a Capitalist.

Not true. Capitlist people work too. In fact they usually work more. You honestly think Bill gates got Microsoft for free or something? This capitist tried and tried and tried. They evenutally become successful.



No you would'nt, you ever heard of democracy? Mutual aid? Consensus democracy? Look it up.

The inidiviual would still be told what to do and how to do it. People dont just get jobs and knwo how to do it.

Peopel will do whatever the majority agrees on doing.




Does your Boss know about that???


If its slow and we work all our kickbacks its ok.



Well now your forced to provide for the rich now.

I provide for myself. The rich offered me a job to make a living. the rich don't point a gun at me and force me to work.

I work because work is a fact of life and in order to survive you must evenually get of yoru ass and do something. Do you communist even realize this?



In short, like you, they are people who just like to suck up to power

I admire successful people. Youa re jealous of them and you think they got there without any work and dont ever do any work.

[RGacky3]

No Government likes money too. Havent you notice how government workers give themselves full benefit plus 6 figure salaries?

They don't give it to themselves, its subject to democratic controls. Ever notice how CEOs give themselves way way more than a government worker could ever dream of?


Dumb people believe in high taxes because they actually think it goes to benefit the needy when in fact most of it goes into the hands of lazy buerocrates.


Dumb people believe that tax cuts will stiumlate the economy when really it will just go into the hands of lazy rich people.

Dumb people believe in the market thinking it will serve the needs of people, which really it just serves corporate profits.


Not true. Capitlist people work too. In fact they usually work more. You honestly think Bill gates got Microsoft for free or something? This capitist tried and tried and tried. They evenutally become successful.


Most of them are check writers, but you now who else works hard? Monarchs, does that mean they worked for their wealth? Hell no.


The inidiviual would still be told what to do and how to do it. People dont just get jobs and knwo how to do it.

Peopel will do whatever the majority agrees on doing.


People don't know how to do things of caorse, so they'll need to be tought, but learning how to do something is much different from working for someone elses profit.

As for your second point, yeah, in certain situations.


I provide for myself. The rich offered me a job to make a living.

I just love this attitude :P, the rich offered me a job to make a living, well goddamn what nice guys. You provide for yourself, no you provide for the rich, and they give you something on the side, but yout SOOO happy that they allowed you to work for them.


I work because work is a fact of life and in order to survive you must evenually get of yoru ass and do something. Do you communist even realize this?


Yeah, which is why we want Capitalists to do the same, communists believe in work, we just belive you should be albe to fire your boss :).


I admire successful people. Youa re jealous of them and you think they got there without any work and dont ever do any work.

You admire rich people, your like the house slave really, loves his master.

I'm not jelous of them, in the words of debs, I don't wnat to raise above the masses, I want to raise with them.

I think they got there by either being buying their way there. Most money nowerdays is made from money, not actaully being a productive member of society.

[#FF0000]

No Government likes money too. Havent you notice how government workers give themselves full benefit plus 6 figure salaries? Not to mention you have all these buerocrates nto working. They make their money though taxation. Dumb people believe in high taxes because they actually think it goes to benefit the needy when in fact most of it goes into the hands of lazy buerocrates.

I just want to point out that Europe generally has higher taxes than the U.S. and they have a much lower divide between the rich and the poor.


Not true. Capitlist people work too. In fact they usually work more. You honestly think Bill gates got Microsoft for free or something? This capitist tried and tried and tried. They evenutally become successful.

Bill Gates could easily live off the money he made off Microsoft for the rest of his life. Workers don't have this luxury.


I provide for myself. The rich offered me a job to make a living. the rich don't point a gun at me and force me to work.

No but if you do not work you will be poor and hungry. In a society that could easily meet the needs of almost everybody, that is coercive.


I work because work is a fact of life and in order to survive you must evenually get of yoru ass and do something. Do you communist even realize this?

This is a really neat ad hominem attack you used here. Meanwhile you're the guy coming in here with barely a basic understanding of what we believe and telling us we are wrong.


I admire successful people. Youa re jealous of them and you think they got there without any work and dont ever do any work.

Another great ad hominem attack because you are such a baby that you can't handle someone challenging your incorrect worldview. Excellent job here is a gold star. *

We aren't jealous of successful people. We think that the power held by people who own the means of production is unjustified, especially considering the brutalizing conditions it puts people who don't own things in.

[Budguy68]

yeah, but theres way way less of you (well not you, because your a worker), then there are of us, but thats fine, if the only property protection is you, then thats fine, if we need your stuff we'll take it.

Nope, there are plenty of Pro Cappies in the US. And most of them wouldn't put up with commies tryignt o take over.



No you don't, its better to stop short of failure and be able to do another set :).

You completely missed the point.



That does'nt make any sense, because pysical training, is physical, its a 100% personal activity and does'nt effect anyone else.

Thatsd why I said What IF........ Now you're just dancing around the question.

Yes, Muscle gains (IE PROFITS) depend entirely on how hard and how smart you work out.

But what if muscle gains were socialize amogst everyone at the Gym. Go ahead and dance around the question though.




Heres what I would be in favor of, public gyms :), or at least public training areas, so that staying strong would be available to anyone that wants too, money should be kept out of health.

We were talkign abotu public gyms. And if we had them they would be crappy.





But socialism is'nt about everyone getting the same thing, its about a democratic economy, training is a 100% personal endevor, economics is be definition a social one, which is why it should be treated as a social endevor, I think personal desicions should be personal (whether or not you want to be strong is a personal one), and collective desicions should be make collectively (such as what are we going to do with the land, that we all need).


Life, getting better, gainign wealth is a personal endevor. Whether a person wants to associate with other people, or with who or in what way is also completely up to the person. Socialism and Communism go against the inidiviual.

You socialist DO believe in profiting. However the only difference is that You believe in profiting as a Whole VS indiviual profiting.

Like workign out, not everyone will perform the same and YOU WILL SEE different results.

[ckaihatsu]

I think we just have to agree to disagree.


Oh, we *disagree* all right -- you can be certain of that.

This would be a nice civil little difference of opinion over favorite football teams if the *consequences* of the disagreement were just as banal. But on the topic of how humanity should organize its labor, such a difference of advocacy has *large-scale* repercussions, potentially.





As a libertarian, and probably more specifically a constitutionalist I think that there are just going to be certain things we just dont see eye to eye... I can believe in natural rights, and in property ownership and making a profit off of other peoples' labor and while I do all that it fits into my concept of what liberty is about...


The sure-fire method of telling that a libertarian is arguing is that all of the arguments are centered around the *individual*, as if we were all still living on family farms and there was no larger economic activity than village life....

Sure, "natural rights" and individual property ownership is an improvement over the rule of kings and lords under feudalism, but, fuck, we're already at least 200 years past *that* point...!

Today the question is how much of a *bribe* are we (implicitly) paying to those who *organize* capital and labor production, in the form of a profit -- ? It could be called "liberty" to not have to deal with such overhead and machinations of capital ownership if you're a regular worker, but the "liberty" is at the price of being exploited -- essentially overpaying for the capitalists' de facto organization of the material world.

To add insult to injury we then have to hear this line of crap from libertarian types about how, at eye-level, everything is peachy because of "natural rights" and "individual liberty". The same thing could be told to children and it would be just as equally valid, unfortunately.





I know most of the communists on board here would abhor these same things (at least the ones in this thread who indicated) and show these same concepts as proof of why we need communism and not capitalism, etc..


It's never the case that Marxists / socialists / communists are for *rolling back* the progressive developments from the bourgeois revolutions. We're *against* "natural rights" and "individual liberty" in the same way that people are against grammophones and 8-bit technology -- there's no remaining reason to support such things because *they're fucking outdated*.

Sure, one can go around revelling in and "enjoying" their freedom of movement and even of material acquisition, but at some point each and every one of us "hits the ceiling" of realization that things could be better overall, for everyone, in some common regard -- simply that the world could be a better place than it currently is. At that point of realization we have to ask ourselves if more people should be acquiring more material stuff on an individual basis to make the world better, or should the betterment be based on a more *socialized*, *common* basis, so that we can *each* spend less time in the role of material caretakers, and be more liberated to have the world's bounty work *for* us, in *common*.

Yes, there would still be work, and yes, maybe every person reading this might find the need to be in some kind of work in such a post-capitalist society, but the *larger* point is what the *benefits* of all that work would go to -- it *wouldn't* go to bribe-making through constant profit extraction, or to vault-stuffing for strengthening one national currency against another, or to Orwellian measures against a domestic population for the sake of cultural cohesion.

Instead we'd *transcend* pedestrian "liberty" and take up our proper co-administrative roles over the ongoing construction of the material world that we all happened to be born into at varying geographic locations, at varying points on the timeline.

[Old Man Diogenes]

libertarians base their morals on ownership of self and the principles of non-aggression. thats about where it ends. none of this dumb shit that i just read.

theres nothing childish about "no, its mine!" when they expended their labor on it. id say its more childish to look at something YOU had no part of and say "no, its mine!"

I think he means libertarian capitalists. Personally if "libertarians base their morals on ownership of self", I am a libertarian, just a libertarian socialist rather than capitalist.

[Budguy68]

I just want to point out that Europe generally has higher taxes than the U.S. and they have a much lower divide between the rich and the poor..

They are still countries where the means of production are own privately. Its over all more cap then comm.




Bill Gates could easily live off the money he made off Microsoft for the rest of his life. Workers don't have this luxury.

So now you are admitting that Bill Gates works instead of just living off his money. Thank you. Iam glad you commies now realize that cappies are hard workign people.



No but if you do not work you will be poor and hungry. In a society that could easily meet the needs of almost everybody, that is coercive.

Yes, it is in the nature of the Universe that You have to work and move in order to survive. Does this mean the Universe is coercive? NO

Having to work in order to survive is totally different then a man holdign a gun to your head telling you you have to work in order to survive.





This is a really neat ad hominem attack you used here. Meanwhile you're the guy coming in here with barely a basic understanding of what we believe and telling us we are wrong.


Peopel keep complaining that they have to work in order to survive...

Makes me think that they don't understand the nature of the universe...

You commies keep saying communism will be all smooth ride and easy and everyone will be happy yet you cant even prove it or tell us how this will be..




We aren't jealous of successful people. We think that the power held by people who own the means of production is unjustified, especially considering the brutalizing conditions it puts people who don't own things in.

You make it sound as if there weren't any brutaliziing working conditions in socialist countries. So what made Cubians take their chances with the sharks after Castro gained power?

ofcourse a developing nation will at first have hard workign conditions since many of them are starting from dirt. I mean workign for a crappy wage is better then having to hunt rats. You gotta start from somewhere.

[RGacky3]

You completely missed the point.


I did'nt, what I wrote was kind of a PS:


Nope, there are plenty of Pro Cappies in the US. And most of them wouldn't put up with commies tryignt o take over.


I'm talking worldwide, and once presumtions and private property laws are taken down, I'm thinking you'll see things change real quickly.

Kind of like how there are no Royalists in the US anymore :).


Yes, Muscle gains (IE PROFITS) depend entirely on how hard and how smart you work out.

But what if muscle gains were socialize amogst everyone at the Gym. Go ahead and dance around the question though.


Why would they be socialized? Thats not something that ANY socialist, (personal endevors) would want to socialize, be it gardening or training, or anything like that.

What Capitalism is, is not how hard or smart you work out.

the Capitalist version of training would be, you work out, and 10 other guys work out, and all hte gains go to the guy that owns the gym :P, would you be ok with that? Oh and maybe he'll give hand down a little of the muscle gain.


We were talkign abotu public gyms. And if we had them they would be crappy.


We'll I've worked out at both public (publicly owned gyms in Norway), and private gyms in the United States, and honestly, there was'nt any difference, except the public one was tons cheaper (no overhead) :).


Life, getting better, gainign wealth is a personal endevor. Whether a person wants to associate with other people, or with who or in what way is also completely up to the person. Socialism and Communism go against the inidiviual.


economics IS ALWAYS association with other people, by definition.

Economics is never a purely personal/individual endevor, thats the problem with libertarians, its not individual vrs collective, its hiarchy vrs collective.


You socialist DO believe in profiting. However the only difference is that You believe in profiting as a Whole VS indiviual profiting.


Actually no we don't believe in profit, we don't need to produce more than needed. We believe in producing for social good, not for profit.


Like workign out, not everyone will perform the same and YOU WILL SEE different results.

So what? Thats an irrelivant point, what does that have to do with private capitalist property?

[Revolution starts with U]

They are still countries where the means of production are own privately. Its over all more cap then comm.

Yes, but it proves you wrong more than us. High taxes and big government are supposed to be economy killers. Yet Scandanavia is doing perfectly fine... how about that?


So now you are admitting that Bill Gates works instead of just living off his money. Thank you. Iam glad you commies now realize that cappies are hard workign people
No, he's saying Bill Gates at one time worked hard. And now because of that, he can continue creating value without lifting a finger. It may have started a meritocracy, but it quickly becomes a purchasocracy.
You're telling me Paris Hilton "works hard?" If you did it would go against your thoery that wealth is not gained through production of goods per se, but through production of value.



Yes, it is in the nature of the Universe that You have to work and move in order to survive. Does this mean the Universe is coercive? NO

In the nature of the capitalist universe you merely need to recieve the monetary benefit of someone else's labor, and you can never work again. In capitalism, the whole goal is to work so you don't have to work anymore. That's what the proles are out there doing (like when they blow all their money on the lottery).


Having to work in order to survive is totally different then a man holdign a gun to your head telling you you have to work in order to survive.

Correct. And if I could just go hunter-gather on the lands, all would be fine. But I can't, it's all owned. I can hide in parks and hope not to get caught, or live under a bridge and beg for a living. Or... I can go work for myself. And until I gain a reasonably amount of liquidation, I am subject to the economic whims of my wealthy overlords. I have no direct representation over my economic life (actually I do, because I run my own business, but I'm talking the average prole).



Peopel keep complaining that they have to work in order to survive...

Makes me think that they don't understand the nature of the universe...

Who is complaining that? Maybe your average prole on the streets is, because it's true. WHat we're complaining about is that those who recieve the monetary benefits of someone's (not even necessarily their) previous labor has total economic control over other people's lives.
WHat's the difference between a slave and a man with a job that won't pay for a house and food?


You commies keep saying communism will be all smooth ride and easy and everyone will be happy yet you cant even prove it or tell us how this will be..
WHat do you mean "you people?" "Us people" are a collection of individuals with very similar goals. You will address "us" as such.
And nobody said it would be utopia. It will just be real liberty. I'm sorry you can't handle that.



You make it sound as if there weren't any brutaliziing working conditions in socialist countries. So what made Cubians take their chances with the sharks after Castro gained power?

Cuba, tho a good attempt at staist socialism (despite western propaganda, it's bad, but not nearly as bad as one would believe, from what i have found so far), or state capitalism, whatever you want to call it. But as long as someone controls the means of production for the workers, it's not socialism.

[Budguy68]

Yes, but it proves you wrong more than us. High taxes and big government are supposed to be economy killers. Yet Scandanavia is doing perfectly fine... how about that?


Probably because they aren't as corrupt. Lot of these Northern European countries I notice can pull partial socialism off. Probably because people only grab what they need. Also we buy a lot of our jet engines and other advance technology from some of these northern Euro countries.

However when Russia or Cuba or some 3rd world does that same thing it causes everything to flip flop.

The problem here is that you commies expect the same results from everyone.




No, he's saying Bill Gates at one time worked hard. And now because of that, he can continue creating value without lifting a finger. It may have started a meritocracy, but it quickly becomes a purchasocracy.
You're telling me Paris Hilton "works hard?" If you did it would go against your thoery that wealth is not gained through production of goods per se, but through production of value.


Bill Gates works. I imagine He may have worked a lot harder before he made his first million or billions but he works. Anyways he didnt force everyone to buy his software.

Paris Hiton is a heriss. She started out that way. Then she gain more money because dumb fucks keep buying her shit and keep giving her attention. This group of dumb fucks is the majority. The same people you believe will make good decisions!

Anyways I dont think Bill Gates and Paris Hiton cause poor people in Africa to starve and what not.



In the nature of the capitalist universe you merely need to recieve the monetary benefit of someone else's labor, and you can never work again. In capitalism, the whole goal is to work so you don't have to work anymore. That's what the proles are out there doing (like when they blow all their money on the lottery).

Depends, Yeah Iam sure you can live OK without work after you make your first million. Or you can be like Donna Trump and contiue to work hard and make more money.



Correct. And if I could just go hunter-gather on the lands, all would be fine. But I can't, it's all owned. I can hide in parks and hope not to get caught, or live under a bridge and beg for a living. Or... I can go work for myself. And until I gain a reasonably amount of liquidation, I am subject to the economic whims of my wealthy overlords. I have no direct representation over my economic life (actually I do, because I run my own business, but I'm talking the average prole).

The people who did all the land grab was the government. And I do believe the US has plenty of open places. Plenty of indigious people who still live hunter atherer too in other parts of the world.

And yes we are losing wild lands but its more because we have billions of people living in the planet.




Who is complaining that? Maybe your average prole on the streets is, because it's true. WHat we're complaining about is that those who recieve the monetary benefits of someone's (not even necessarily their) previous labor has total economic control over other people's lives.
WHat's the difference between a slave and a man with a job that won't pay for a house and food?



They depend on us as much as we depend on them. If a person wants to make more he should invest in going back to school or consider takign a risk and become an entrepreuor like so many people do and failed.




WHat do you mean "you people?" "Us people" are a collection of individuals with very similar goals. You will address "us" as such.
And nobody said it would be utopia. It will just be real liberty. I'm sorry you can't handle that.


You commies.




Cuba, tho a good attempt at staist socialism (despite western propaganda, it's bad, but not nearly as bad as one would believe, from what i have found so far), or state capitalism, whatever you want to call it. But as long as someone controls the means of production for the workers, it's not socialism


You complain about low wages in the US yet in Cuba the average wage was like 25 a month and it was corrupt to the bone. After decades of hardship and suffering Castro Admitted the the cuban model of socialism failed.

Living dirt poor is deinitly not good IMHO. However a person is completely free to live as such.

[Revolution starts with U]

Probably because they aren't as corrupt. Lot of these Northern European countries I notice can pull partial socialism off. Probably because people only grab what they need. Also we buy a lot of our jet engines and other advance technology from some of these northern Euro countries.

WHat a convenient scapegoat (kind of racist to, I might add). Oh, socialism works for white liberals because their not greedy like blacks and anglos. Which means, my response to;

However when Russia or Cuba or some 3rd world does that same thing it causes everything to flip flop
Is that when a democracy tries it, it works. The problem isn't 3rd world. These countries just traded one tyranny for another, that was slightly better..



Paris Hiton is a heriss. She started out that way. Then she gain more moneyP because dumb fucks keep buying her shit and keep giving her attention. This group of dumb fucks is the majority. The same people you believe will make good decisions!

At least you, unlike most libertarians, can admit you give 2 fucks about real liberty.
Yes, the people should be allowed to say they love Paris Hilton, no matter how awful I think she is. You miss the point. My problem isn't that she's rich and famous, it's that she has the power to control people's economic lives because of nothing but worthless paper.


Anyways I dont think Bill Gates and Paris Hiton cause poor people in Africa to starve and what not.

Ever heard of a sweat shop, or under-subsistence wages? How do you think all these computers, clothes, and perfumes are made? Open your eyes, not everyone has it as cushy as us fat westerners!


Depends, Yeah Iam sure you can live OK without work after you make your first million. Or you can be like Donna Trump and contiue to work hard and make more money.
Is pushing paper harder work than digging for coal? Stop saying he is "working hard." Working hard has nothing to do with it. If you understood capitalist economics you would realize that. It's actually our problem with capitalism. Like for realz dawg. "Subjective value" and all that, look it up...

.
The people who did all the land grab was the government. And I do believe the US has plenty of open places. Plenty of indigious people who still live hunter atherer too in other parts of the world
Ya we know. Government grabs land, partitions it out as property. Ya, we got it. We're well aware of how the capitalist system works. You make a grave fallacy by saying capitalism is anarchism and socialism is statism.



They depend on us as much as we depend on them. If a person wants to make more he should invest in going back to school or consider takign a risk and become an entrepreuor like so many people do and failed.

Did you just say that because we depend on (wage) slaves, and because they can, sometime in the future, maybe save enough to go to school, and hope to be entrepreneurs, that slavery is ok?
Again, what's the difference between slavery and a job that doesn't pay for food and housing?



You commies.

I am an individual. I have my own thoughts and beliefs.



You complain about low wages in the US yet in Cuba the average wage was like 25 a month and it was corrupt to the bone. After decades of hardship and suffering Castro Admitted the the cuban model of socialism failed.

I complain about low wages in Cuba as well. After all your time here, you still don't understand "our" positions? Cuba still has a far way to go to be real socialism. Real socialism isn't some party making decisions for the workers. It's the workers making decisions for themselves.
Also, Castro didn't say "socialism failed." And he certainly didn't say Cuba should become capitalist. Stop buying into the silly 1-liners Fox feeds you and look at the context. The Cuban model failed. That is all.


Living dirt poor is deinitly not good IMHO. However a person is completely free to live as such.

You have no idea what goes on in the real world...

[#FF0000]

You complain about low wages in the US yet in Cuba the average wage was like 25 a month and it was corrupt to the bone. After decades of hardship and suffering Castro Admitted the the cuban model of socialism failed.

Living dirt poor is deinitly not good IMHO. However a person is completely free to live as such.

The wages are hella low but almost everything is subsidized or cheap. Cubans take in the most calories/protein out of all the people in any other country in the Caribbean.

And he said "the cuban model failed". I don't know what he meant by it, specifically, but after he put out that statement, he put out another saying how funny it was to him seeing how everyone interpreted it.

[#FF0000]

Living dirt poor is deinitly not good IMHO. However a person is completely free to live as such.

Have you ever been in dire financial straits for any extended period of time because to be honest this is actually sort of offensive because of how stupid it is.

[ComradeMan]

The worst kind poverty is poverty in spirit and a lot of that is being shown here...

[Palingenisis]

Libertarianism is weird middle class jealousy of those who are actually on top...A bit(well more than a bit) like fascism.

Libertarians are utter scum.

[#FF0000]

Libertarianism is weird middle class jealousy of those who are actually on top...A bit(well more than a bit) like fascism.

Libertarians are utter scum.

imo there's that sort who are middle class and sort of educated and cling to it because they think the free market is the messiah and if only the markets were just a tiny bit freer then everything would be better and we would be in the land of milk and honey.

...and then there's the sort of libertarianism embraced by folks like the Koch brothers who know exactly what "libertarianism" means for them.

[Outinleftfield]

The anger is against the Government. You know that thing you gusy want to hand all authority and power too..

No. We do not want to hand all authority and power over to the government, especially not this government. We want a whole new government structure. And for left-wing anarchists not even that, just an administration of things. Even us Marxists eventually want just an "Administration of things" with no government which is called the "communist" stage.


power as well. Government wants power. They want to be able to tell us what to do.

Capitalists have that too and they use it. They tell you what you can wear, what drugs you can use, decide how you live your life through your work requirements(i.e. amount of money you make, amount of vacation time).


Work is a requirement to survive. You can't just Sit on your butt all day and expect to live. Its either you work or you starve.

Work OR EXPLOITATION is a requirement to survive. Socialists want a society where EVERYBODY works, the only exception being the most severely disabled. We want everybody to work but we also want nobody to be alienated, we want a society where work is natural and reflects a person's own internal creative drive rather than the drudgery work is under capitalism.

Inheriting money is NOT working, owning and collecting on property is NOT working. Telling people what to do is NOT working. All these things are what capitalists do.


We would still have a supervision tellign us what to do and how to do it .

We would management, but they would chosen by the workers democratically based on their qualifications and ultimately power would rest with the workers. The management's job would be to use their brains and figure out the best ways to do things but the workers would be free to disagree and make a different decision, even free to fire/demote a manager who isn't up to snuff.


The difference is that You Get Paid by Need. So if someone at work did less work then you but had greater Needs that other person would get "paid" more.

How is that unfair? Everyone has "needs", some have greater needs, some less.

One person might need an expensive medication just in order to survive, another might not. For them to both receive the same amount of resources for the same work and to call that justice is silly. It might be reasonable to pay them both the same if (and I believe in any socialist society this will be the case) the medication is free.

At any rate most socialists agree that payment solely based on need at first is unreaslitic. Need would be factored in but so would work. So hypothetically two people with the same ability, putting in the same effort, doing the same amount and quality of work and who have the same needs would be paid the same. Same scenario but one person has more needs, that person gets paid more so that they are both getting the same percentage of their needs met.

Note that by "need" we don't mean "Bare essentials". Marx explains in Kapital that "need" includes all human needs including things not needed for basic survival but are still nevertheless needs because they come from the human condition.


You claim that I am a wage slave when in fact Iam writting to you from work....

Could you quit your job right now? Could you go work in a job where you would keep the full product of your labor and not have it taken by a boss? If No, then you are a wage slave.


Also by making Essentials Free to everyone you are enslaving everyone at the same time because now people would be forced provide for each other.

You make it sound like we propose to have armed squads force people to work. WRONG. You don't work, you get no pay. Bare essentials maybe but who wants just bare essentials?


You have no idea what a Libertarian is. Libertarians don't want other people to pay for their essentials and they also don't want to pay for other people's essentials.

Then why do you support a system where you have to "pay" unworking capitalists your labor while receiving only a "wage" back(less than the value of your labor)? And that's paying for many "needs" of capitalists that are far from essential.


Not true. Capitlist people work too. In fact they usually work more. You honestly think Bill gates got Microsoft for free or something? This capitist tried and tried and tried. They evenutally become successful.

And Bill Gates would've been rewarded for his hard work in a socialist society BUT do you honestly believe his accumulated labor really adds up to billions and billions of dollars? Do you seriously believe that it's even possible for a person to work that much(factoring in both time and effort) in a lifetime?


Peopel will do whatever the majority agrees on doing.

There may very well be some workplaces where the majority has some very stupid ideas or bases decision-making and task assignments on whose the most "popular" or some superficial nonsense.

Smart workers will duck out and find another workplace, and in this day and age with the internet I'm sure there will be forums where people discuss their predicament and look for new places to work.

Those workplaces that seriously turn decision-making into a popularity contest are going to be less productive, and be unreliable in exchanges with other workplaces. This will force them to turn around, or stubbornly refuse to change and wind up with less and less goods and services for themselves.


I admire successful people. Youa re jealous of them and you think they got there without any work and dont ever do any work.

By "successful" I assume you mean "rich". There people are exploiting other people. I could never accept a position where I am exploiting another human being. These people have had to morally justify their own actions they take to maximize profits to themselves, some such as those selling arms or running sweatshops more than others. I do NOT envy moral and ethical self-degradation. Furthermore even the bourgeois are alienated by the system, by the ideology and culture it perpetuates. They bought into the myth that making endless "money" and getting more "toys" than others would make them happy and would mean they were "better" than other people. I'm not against all consumption, but there's consumption for the sake of personal enjoyment and consumption for the sake of bragging rights, and it's the latter that drives the greed and exploitation we see in capitalism.

[ckaihatsu]

Those workplaces that seriously turn decision-making into a popularity contest are going to be less productive, and be unreliable in exchanges with other workplaces. This will force them to turn around, or stubbornly refuse to change and wind up with less and less goods and services for themselves.


Minor, "internal" point here -- while, for the sake of argument it may be good to envision a localized ("libertarian") network of production interchanges, I think in practice we'd see something more akin to "food chains" / supply chains in the nesting of smaller, more refined and customized productive plants "underneath" larger factories of production that source the basic raw materials for supplying to scores of secondary (and tertiary, etc.) plants.

In this way we could see a productive arrangement more resembling the spreading-out of a waterfall. All professional issues would immediately affect a factory's "downstream" and would be known immediately -- the ultimate purpose of production would be mass distribution of the final, finished products (and services) to the end users. By this configuration there wouldn't be a need for a complex, intermeshed system of abstracted values floating around resembling the market system in the least way. Rather, it would be more like the internal accounting systems of corporations and militaries, where certain authority exists within for making initial requisitions and having the entire supply chain above (and labor from below) available for the fulfillment of that order.

Since the post-capitalist political economy would be ultimately sourcing from nature, *and* there could be no layer of market-commodity abstract (financial) valuations as there is today, that means there would be *no* basis for the use of market-like values -- any kind of possible valuations would *have to* be quantified from the basis of human labor time.

[MMIKEYJ]

Libertarianism is weird middle class jealousy of those who are actually on top...A bit(well more than a bit) like fascism.

Libertarians are utter scum.
Ive never met any libertarians who are are in with fascism.. In America it seems that its only the libertarians who can recognize the sort of fascism now ongoing in our country.

I dont care if other people want to embrace socialism, or communism or any other sort of -ism out there.

But I want to be able to do whatever I want, whenever I want as long as Im not infringing on the rights of others.

[MMIKEYJ]

imo there's that sort who are middle class and sort of educated and cling to it because they think the free market is the messiah and if only the markets were just a tiny bit freer then everything would be better and we would be in the land of milk and honey.

...and then there's the sort of libertarianism embraced by folks like the Koch brothers who know exactly what "libertarianism" means for them.

I think the highlighted text is pretty indicative of my sentiments..

Koch bros.. dont know who they are.. dont know anybody who knows who they are. But I hear they get alot of play on places like democratic underground for being behind the tea party or something..

[#FF0000]

I think the highlighted text is pretty indicative of my sentiments..

Koch bros.. dont know who they are.. dont know anybody who knows who they are. But I hear they get alot of play on places like democratic underground for being behind the tea party or something..

Yeah, that's them. I hear about them a lot on Exiled Online, which does a lot of hit pieces on big name "Libertarians" in the CATO institute and things like that.


Ive never met any libertarians who are are in with fascism.

I think it was Hayek who said that Fascism saved Europe from Communism and was preferable to it.

[Amado]

I think it was Hayek who said that Fascism saved Europe from Communism and was preferable to it.That was Mises, actually. Some libertarians* actually decry Hayek as a socialist bastard or something. Imagine that.

And libertarians aren't anything, they are useful idiots whose idealist rhetoric provides all cover the corporate status quo needs. Their "class analysis" boils down to evil gubment that coercively taxes the supermen. I'm not much of a sociopath, but sometimes I wish those people had no option but to work in sweatshops to see how they like the free market.

*hanshoppe.com/publications/hoppe_polish-interview.pdf - not able to post links.

[ckaihatsu]

And libertarians aren't anything, they are useful idiots whose idealist rhetoric provides all cover the corporate status quo needs. Their "class analysis" boils down to evil gubment that coercively taxes the supermen.


Another way of putting this is that the corporate economic machine can fog their members' political thoughts in order to sidestep the realm of politics entirely. One foundational political and economic function towards some kind of collectivization, taxes, is hammered away at in favor of "individualists" all locked into their places within the corporate machinery.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Koch bros.. dont know who they are.. dont know anybody who knows who they are. But I hear they get alot of play on places like democratic underground for being behind the tea party or something..Their father was an original member of the John Birch Society and David Koch ran for VP on the Libertarian Party ticket.

They are metioned by liberals angry at the tea-parties because the Koch Bros are the "astro" to the tea-party's "turf". The right doesn't talk about them much because the groups that the Koch's gave a million dollars to last year pretend to be grassroots.


In April, 2009, Melissa Cohlmia, a company spokesperson, denied that the Kochs had direct links to the Tea Party, saying that Americans for Prosperity is “an independent organization and Koch companies do not in any way direct their activities.” Later, she issued a statement: “No funding has been provided by Koch companies, the Koch foundations, or Charles Koch or David Koch specifically to support the tea parties.” David Koch told New York, “I’ve never been to a tea-party event. No one representing the tea party has ever even approached me.”
At the lectern in Austin, however, Venable—a longtime political operative who draws a salary from Americans for Prosperity, and who has worked for Koch-funded political groups since 1994—spoke less warily. “We love what the Tea Parties are doing, because that’s how we’re going to take back America!” she declared, as the crowd cheered. In a subsequent interview, she described herself as an early member of the movement, joking, “I was part of the Tea Party before it was cool!” She explained that the role of Americans for Prosperity was to help “educate” Tea Party activists on policy details, and to give them “next-step training” after their rallies, so that their political energy could be channelled “more effectively.” And she noted that Americans for Prosperity had provided Tea Party activists with lists of elected officials to target. She said of the Kochs, “They’re certainly our people. David’s the chairman of our board. I’ve certainly met with them, and I’m very appreciative of what they do.”


Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer#ixzz16fG1PjLX

http://static.taxcutsforall.com//files/images/iamafpshirt.jpg

The people who wear and buy these shirts may not be oil industry people, but these shirts and the organization that prints them were made possible by donations in the millions from people who made their money in the oil industry.

[RGacky3]

That T-shirt is funny.

[Oswy]

Having debated with self-identifying 'libertarians' quite a bit at other forums I'd argue that most are really just uber-capitalists who pretend that their concern is 'liberty' so they can defend the processes by which the rich get richer and the poor stay exploited.

A distinction should be made between 'left libertarians' and 'right libertarians' (the latter sometimes referred to as 'propertarians'). I have more time for left-libertarians because I think they are at least consistent in their prioritisation of liberty (they include the liberty from arbitrary claims to private ownership of pieces of the earth for example).

In the UK most right-libertarians can, after a little debate, be found out as a kind of social ultra-conservative albeit economically ultra-capitalist (an example would be how such UK libertarians invariably defend the existence of the monarchy, or at least don't show any interest in it as a political problem). Most of these UK propertarians will even admit to voting conservative.

[Cirno(9)]

On a somewhat related topic, do an-caps have some some kind of counter-part of 'false consciousness' to help explain why their ideas are really unpopular amongst the people that they would in theory help?

[Ocean Seal]

The basis for the existence of the Tea Party is the failure of capitalism. Without these economic conditions it would never have existed. It has redirected the anger of the people away from the large failed businesses to their fellow worker and to the "socialists" in the government who have ruined everything despite the fact that there are no socialists in our government, and I believe only one social democrat? How they pulled it off the world may never know.

[Revolution starts with U]

Unemployment is rising everyday! More and more people are leeching off the system!

Self fulfilling prophecy

[Jimmie Higgins]

Unemployment is rising everyday! More and more people are leeching off the system!

Self fulfilling prophecy

"The schools waste money; they should have funds cut and eliminate 'entitlements' for teachers."
Later...
"The schools are failing, it just goes to show that public systems don't work! We need charters and vouchers!"

Hmm yet another self fulfilling prophecy:)

"Welcome to Fox News: Socialists are trying to destroy our country by fighting to keep high wages for people, trying to stop austerity cuts, fighting for socialist health-care for everyone, trying to undermine the wars, fighting for rights for illegal immigrants!"

Later...

"Welcome to Fox News: why are young people, immigrants, and 'entitled' workers increasingly favoring socialism?!"

Self fulfilling prophecy..?