Converting a Libertarian?

[The Intransigent Faction]

Most cases that I've encountered so far have been debates with staunch Capitalists that can end in scornful silence.
I haven't really had much of a chance to talk with someone willing to listen..so I'm not entirely sure how to approach this. I got this PM on YouTube today:

"I believe Corporations rule all this world weather it is a capitalist state or communist and that they always will, till civilization crashes because It doesn't support that level of exploitation of the poor. I take it you believe the same with the exception of a communist state. From my view point the "State" in a communist country will inevitably be made up of the Ultra-Rich and achieves the same level of exploitation. Maybe I'd change my mind If you could show me a decent percentage of countries that are ruled/controlled by poor people. In other words countries that have poor presidents, kings, prime ministers etc. Read the books "The Naked Communist" and "The Naked Capitalist" and they talk about how the rich have exploited the poor in each system."

Here's where the anarcho-Communist approach may seem more likely to cause sympathy..but I was wondering if any Marxist-Leninists etc. could suggest ways of explaining the need for a vanguard party and how said party would be prevented from taking an opportunist leap for anti-Communistic self-enriching bureaucracy.
Otherwise, anarchists, how could I best elaborate on the main points of how a "stateless, classless society" could remain as such for an extended period?

This is whay I have so far:

I certainly would hope that Corporate exploitation will trigger a reaction. This was, of course, the next logical step in accordance with historical materialism which holds the unity of opposites--meaning one extreme (Corporate exploitation) will inevitably spark a parallel (workers' revolt). Of course Lenin argued that for this a vanguard party was needed for the greater good. Why do you believe that Corporations will always rule us?

Yes, it's true that there was a certain level of bureaucracy in Russia under Stalin. I certainly don't support any bureaucracy as I call for a fair distribution of wealth. That's the problem with personality cults and dictatorships...That's where a system of balanced worker's councils is preferable.

The idea of a "Communist State" is, in essence, an oxymoron.
I'm willing to keep an open mind about the level of government control in certain aspects, I suppose...but I would support a vanguard party that takes the necessary measures to prevent counter-revolution by the once wealthier elements of society.
Of course they must be gradually phased out by democratic means (Socialism) in order to set the stage for Communism.

I apologize for any ambiguity or anything of that nature. The heatwave here is apparently melting my brain cells.

[spartan]

The stupid thing about Libertarians is that they all oppose big business and corporations and yet if there ideas were implemented it would simply make it easier for all these big businesses and corporations to take over smaller businesses and dominate the market, as there will be no regulation in the economy!

Standards of safety in workplaces would drop dramatically as the boss wouldnt have to worry about prosecution if s/he didnt keep up standards of safety and a healthy working enviroment (Which all costs money which the boss naturally wants for himself instead of providing health and safety for his/her workers).

Libertarianism is a throw back to a pre-industrial age when the petit-Bourgeois had much more influence in an economy. Libertarianism hasnt moved with the times and would simply make Capitalism even more badder than ever before if allowed to be implemented.

Mind you if Libertarianism ever was implemented at least the majority of people (Proletarians) would quickly see the points in our arguements and probably come over in droves to Communism.

I suppose every bad thing has a good aspect to it.

[GPDP]

I'd like to state that there's no point in arguing with a so-called "libertarian" capitalist and leave it at that, since they are first and foremost convinced capitalists, and will always defend capitalism, even if it means defending the "big government" status quo of today. And that's essentially the entire purpose of the ideology: it's a propaganda weapon used by the ruling class to justify the current exploitative arrangement of society to the working class, as well as a trap meant to ensnare people, especially those in the middle class, with conveniently abstract ideas about "freedom", "individualism", and "small government". The whole movement is completely deluded and detached from reality, as the ruling classes would not stand to benefit from such a system (remember, they want a big, powerful state), and even if it were implemented, it would only further antagonisms within the working class. That said, it is still a dangerous ideology, and its followers are widespread, especially on the internet, so they should definitely be challenged. Remember, though they claim to be freedom-lovers, their idea of freedom is vastly different from ours, and basically entails to liberal catchphrases such as "getting the government off our backs", as opposed to having the freedom to develop oneself to his/her fullest potential, as is one of the fundamental tenets of the socialist idea of freedom. Can they be converted to see how capitalism only provides "freedom" to the rich and powerful (and even they are not totally free from market forces and capitalism's many anti-social effects), and keeps the poor and struggling in shackles, only "free" to ditch one boss for another? Yes, it does happen, but it is not very common. Many of these people would likely see even fascism as a lesser evil to any kind of socialism (though some of the dumber jackasses have such a screwed up view of the political spectrum that they consider the spectrum to be something of a circle, where fascism and "communism" essentially close the circle, and are one and the same lol). So I'm not sure it's even worth the trouble... but if you cannot convert them, at least let them know crystal-clear what socialism truly stands for.

[Wraith]

as opposed to having the freedom to develop oneself to his/her fullest potential, as is one of the fundamental tenets of the socialist idea of freedom.

Really? The socialists I know dispaise freedom for being contrary to the "common good"


Many of these people would likely see even fascism as a lesser evil to any kind of socialism

True


at least let them know crystal-clear what socialism truly stands for.

It would help if you stopped reinterpreting Marx every week

[trivas7]

Libertarians are at cross-purposes trying to champion both bourgeois freedom and at the same time limited or no government. Agorism suffers likewise. In a market economy the state is mandated. They don't use a Marxian analysis of society and therefore don't understand the relationship between the economy and the state.

[Thíazì]

As basically a converted libertarian myself, I'd say all you really have to argue is economics. Libertarians, on social issues, basically agree with anarchists and communists (right to abortion, gay marriage, etc.). What you'd have to prove to a libertarian is that a social- or welfare-based economy is superior to a capitalist one.

[gla22]

As basically a converted libertarian myself, I'd say all you really have to argue is economics. Libertarians, on social issues, basically agree with anarchists and communists (right to abortion, gay marriage, etc.). What you'd have to prove to a libertarian is that a social- or welfare-based economy is superior to a capitalist one.

Same, i was a libertarian before too. Argue purely on an economic basis to show them that it is necessary for a sustainable society and it prevents exploitation of society. Perhaps introduce them to geolibertarianism or georgism first to "soften them up" before you push communism/anarchism on them.

[RHIZOMES]

GeneCosta told me he converted an Objectivist once...

[ckaihatsu]

Libertarians are such blinder-wearing dumbfucks that I'd much prefer to expose them for the jackasses they are than even bother to try to "convert" them. I think only bleeding-heart liberals would be the type to try to talk and convince libertarians and fascists to "come on over" to the left. If it happens, it happens, but I got better things to do....

I prefer to see how deep a hole they want to dig for themselves -- just how far would they go with their privatization lunacy? To the public sidewalks? (Would they chop them up into sections and let the owners charge tolls?) How about the sewer system? (Would they force people to shut their toilets and have to buy individual septic tanks?) Etc.

Any time they try to run to their yesteryear Shangri-La (where minorities didn't benefit anyway), just remind them what a fucking franchise chain is. Here's an argument I used recently:



What if the uncles of several mom-and-pop operations throughout the
Midwest happened to meet up and figured out that by pooling their
inheritances / nest eggs / whatever they could buy *more* goods, at
cheaper wholesale prices, and could leverage a brand name to create
awareness across an entire region? Then they could sell their goods
cheaper than the mom-and-pop stores, *and* be more responsive to the
overall market?


Needless to say, the dumbshit couldn't address this point.


Chris




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[.Wraith.]

As basically a converted libertarian myself, I'd say all you really have to argue is economics. Libertarians, on social issues, basically agree with anarchists and communists (right to abortion, gay marriage, etc.). What you'd have to prove to a libertarian is that a social- or welfare-based economy is superior to a capitalist one.


Same, i was a libertarian before too. Argue purely on an economic basis to show them that it is necessary for a sustainable society and it prevents exploitation of society. Perhaps introduce them to geolibertarianism or georgism first to "soften them up" before you push communism/anarchism on them.

I am a libertarian......... good luck trying to convince me that a welfare system is anything but state robbery in benefit of the lazy.

And I wouldnt "push for socialism" unless you want me to laugh :cool:


Libertarians are such blinder-wearing dumbfucks that I'd much prefer to expose them for the jackasses they are than even bother to try to "convert" them. I think only bleeding-heart liberals would be the type to try to talk and convince libertarians and fascists to "come on over" to the left. If it happens, it happens, but I got better things to do....

When are pleople like going to undertand that private enterprise is always better in the job than a burocartic state.

Why would I want to give my money to the state for them to administer when Im prefectly capable of administering my own resources far more effectively that some state employe


I prefer to see how deep a hole they want to dig for themselves -- just how far would they go with their privatization lunacy? To the public sidewalks? (Would they chop them up into sections and let the owners charge tolls?)

Sidewalks are public property and belong to the state to ensure free access across the city so that argument is ludicrous


How about the sewer system? (Would they force people to shut their toilets and have to buy individual septic tanks?) Etc.

If there were a private company that could provide the sewer service more efectively and cheaper than the state I would gladly accept it.



What if the uncles of several mom-and-pop operations throughout the Midwest happened to meet up and figured out that by pooling their inheritances / nest eggs / whatever they could buy *more* goods, at cheaper wholesale prices, and could leverage a brand name to create awareness across an entire region? Then they could sell their goods cheaper than the mom-and-pop stores, *and* be more responsive to the overall market?

Then they would have created a new private enterprise that responded better to the needs of the market and in doing so provide a more competitive product to the customer............. gosh socialist are dumb!

[Black Light]

I don't see much point in trying to convert Libertarians, we Marxists are not in the business of Proselytization. Individuals who accept Libertarianism as a creed are either at an intellectually immature stage of their development, or are simply reactionaries and opportunists. Either way their goal is not to arrive at a scientific understanding of the world, which demands one not always have the same answer to every question (a condition which perfectly exemplifies Libertarians).

As Marx more than adequately put it:

"All science would be superfluous if the outward appearance and the essence of things directly coincided."

[gla22]

"I am a libertarian......... good luck trying to convince me that a welfare system is anything but state robbery in benefit of the lazy.

And I wouldnt "push for socialism" unless you want me to laugh"

Idon't believe in welfare or handouts.

I see capitalists on the same level as lazy welfare recipients. They benefit from the labors of society without contributing.

[.Wraith.]

I don't see much point in trying to convert Libertarians, we Marxists are not in the business of Proselytization. Individuals who accept Libertarianism as a creed are either at an intellectually immature stage of their development, or are simply reactionaries and opportunists. Either way their goal is not to arrive at a scientific understanding of the world, which demands one not always have the same answer to every question (a condition which perfectly exemplifies Libertarians).


Its funny you say that since marxism is more of a dogma than a science, a religion of ignorance. The rigidness and lack of change of marxists is always their downfall.

Maybe Marx was a philosopher but he certainly was not an economist or a scientist and anyone who has read Das Kapital can see how primitive and obsolete are all his economic theories of LTV and plussvalue since the end of the XVIII century and the rise of the school of marginalist economists.

Even the communist manifesto and his "scientific socialism" was incredibly vague about how to achieve any of its goals.

If people like you want to continue arguing about "dialetic materialism" that fine by me, I like to watch socialist morons to argue about nothing but dont pretend to name that socialist bullshit a science.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I am a libertarian......... good luck trying to convince me that a welfare system is anything but state robbery in benefit of the lazy.

As another has said, I don't believe in bourgeois State welfare.
All it does is use minimal State handouts to try to appease the workers who are getting paid lousy wages (since the higher-ups have the "freedom" to do so) and distract them from the problems of the system itself.
It's as many politicians would say "throwing money at the problem" without addressing a root issue.


When are pleople like going to undertand that private enterprise is always better in the job than a burocartic state.

Why would I want to give my money to the state for them to administer when Im prefectly capable of administering my own resources far more effectively that some state employee

Because wealth is pooled into the workers' state and distributed as needed among the people. With private trade, the vast amount of wealth still remains in the hands of the rich. Ideally, Communism would be a classless, stateless society. So none of us here would support a "bureaucratic State" anymore than we support Corporate bureaucrats. A vanguard party is needed to ensure that there is no return to Capitalism which would mean a return to poverty for many and extreme wealth for some.

"You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society."


Sidewalks are public property and belong to the state to ensure free access across the city so that argument is ludicrous.

For the moment, yes. If you believe that nobody's ever talked of privatizing sidewalks, though, you're fooling yourself.


If there were a private company that could provide the sewer service more efectively and cheaper than the state I would gladly accept it.

Even if you were a worker in this private company and got paid a lousy wage for long hours in these poor conditions in a sewer?
Would you then think it proper that you were doing the labour and got paid minimally while someone got the profits for putting you to work?


Then they would have created a new private enterprise that responded better to the needs of the market and in doing so provide a more competitive product to the customer............. gosh socialist are dumb!

If you're going to come here for any productive discussion, I'd suggest not insulting the vast majority of members here in a single comment. If you aren't here for productive discussion, you shouldn't be here at all as you could be regarded as a troll.
You talk about more competition as if it's a good thing. Without government intervention, however, that competition is bound to end somewhere with the absorption or abolition of small businesses--Corporatism. Under this Corporatism, you'd rely on a ridiculously small and ridiculously rich group of people to sell back to you the products of your labour.

"Its funny you say that since marxism is more of a dogma than a science, a religion of ignorance. The rigidness and lack of change of marxists is always their downfall."

Right which is why there have not been multiple interpretations of Marx and why the only group on this forum is called "Marxist". :rolleyes:
Libertarianism is incredibly dogmatic.
Doesn't seem like you've read the Manifesto. If the methods of achieving Communism seem "vague" to you then it's funny that you can refer to allegedly undefined methods as "bullshit" at all.
"The general laws of motion and development of nature, human society and thought."--Yes. Clearly no science involved :rolleyes:.

[Dros]

I see capitalists on the same level as lazy welfare recipients. They benefit from the labors of society without contributing.

You're an idiot worthy of OI.

[gla22]

^^^^^^
Why? because I think people should have to contribute to society before reaping the rewards?

[The Intransigent Faction]

^^^^^^
Why? because I think people should have to contribute to society before reaping the rewards?

I think he meant that it's wrong to assume that people on welfare have never contributed to society.
As I said, it seems like a way to use bourgeois State handouts to temporarily appease the exploited workers, who are getting paid wages too low to really live on at all, and who are not yet class conscious.
To say that all welfare recipients are lazy is to buy into bourgeois propaganda that doesn't mention their exploitation. If you worked to support a starving family and someone offered you a way of even slightly better sustenance, would you not take that?
As for those who are out on the streets due to drug habits..where do you think that comes from?
Look at what motivates drug lords..profit! Because there's an incentive for those conditioned by Capitalist society to be greedy, they sell products like that just to get ahead. Another, perhaps appropriate, example would be the tobacco companies. Naturally they don't give a damn about the side effects--just that you get hooked. As for what turns the poor to drugs, even my bourgeois English teacher has acknowledged that they turn to drugs as an escapism the same way that those who can afford them may use video games. All it takes is to dupe them once and they don't know a way out.
So, put more directly: You have to examine the extenuating circumstances that leads to the "laziness" of the poorest groups of society--those who, naturally, end up desperate enough to go on welfare. We should not condemn people to death for this..we should try to discover the material conditions that led to their situation and choose the natural course to change those circumstances.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

You could introduce libertarians to the left "gently" with anarcho-individualism of the Proudhon, Tucker, and even left-Rothbard nature.

[Black Light]

Its funny you say that since marxism is more of a dogma than a science, a religion of ignorance. The rigidness and lack of change of marxists is always their downfall.

Maybe Marx was a philosopher but he certainly was not an economist or a scientist and anyone who has read Das Kapital can see how primitive and obsolete are all his economic theories of LTV and plussvalue since the end of the XVIII century and the rise of the school of marginalist economists.

Even the communist manifesto and his "scientific socialism" was incredibly vague about how to achieve any of its goals.

If people like you want to continue arguing about "dialetic materialism" that fine by me, I like to watch socialist morons to argue about nothing but dont pretend to name that socialist bullshit a science.

If Marxism is such a dogma then why are there so many diverse theoretical positions which spring up as a result from it? Marxism is a theory which has accomplished more concrete changes in history than any other, and has inspired an array of thinkers and philosophies so diverse that no other theory can compete.

If you are really looking for a dogma you are on the right track by selecting a theory which hasn't changed in 200 years.

Look, it's obvious you are just an idiot and a troll, just like I said all Libertarians were. Next time, you might make yourself look less like an idiot if you didn't call surplus-value "plussvalue." There's no way you ever read a damn thing by Marx, much less his economic theories. Now, why don't you come back when you are intellectually mature enough to know that a theory which has the same answer for everything is bullshit.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Its funny you say that since marxism is more of a dogma than a science, a religion of ignorance. The rigidness and lack of change of marxists is always their downfall.

Maybe Marx was a philosopher but he certainly was not an economist or a scientist and anyone who has read Das Kapital can see how primitive and obsolete are all his economic theories of LTV and plussvalue since the end of the XVIII century and the rise of the school of marginalist economists.

Even the communist manifesto and his "scientific socialism" was incredibly vague about how to achieve any of its goals.

If people like you want to continue arguing about "dialetic materialism" that fine by me, I like to watch socialist morons to argue about nothing but dont pretend to name that socialist bullshit a science.

Based on your second paragraph, it's safe to conclude you haven't read even the first volume of Das Kapital. The "Marginalist Revolution," ha. If we quizzed you over marginalism and Marx' LTV theory entail, would you fail like Baconator did? Let's start: how come Jevons didn't find marginalism and LTV contradictory?

Rigidness of Marxism? :laugh: That is why we have self-declared Marxists disagreeing over issues like the importance of feudalism, if dialectics is applicable, and whether or not there needs to be a transition stage.

Grow up, kid.

[gla22]

I think he meant that it's wrong to assume that people on welfare have never contributed to society.
As I said, it seems like a way to use bourgeois State handouts to temporarily appease the exploited workers, who are getting paid wages too low to really live on at all, and who are not yet class conscious.
To say that all welfare recipients are lazy is to buy into bourgeois propaganda that doesn't mention their exploitation. If you worked to support a starving family and someone offered you a way of even slightly better sustenance, would you not take that?
As for those who are out on the streets due to drug habits..where do you think that comes from?
Look at what motivates drug lords..profit! Because there's an incentive for those conditioned by Capitalist society to be greedy, they sell products like that just to get ahead. Another, perhaps appropriate, example would be the tobacco companies. Naturally they don't give a damn about the side effects--just that you get hooked. As for what turns the poor to drugs, even my bourgeois English teacher has acknowledged that they turn to drugs as an escapism the same way that those who can afford them may use video games. All it takes is to dupe them once and they don't know a way out.
So, put more directly: You have to examine the extenuating circumstances that leads to the "laziness" of the poorest groups of society--those who, naturally, end up desperate enough to go on welfare. We should not condemn people to death for this..we should try to discover the material conditions that led to their situation and choose the natural course to change those circumstances.

When I said "lazy welfare recipients" I reffered to the welfare recipients that are lazy, not implying all welfare recipients are lazy. Just to clarify. The problem is this society holds the currency speculator as a genius while instead he makes money by manipulating a situation that contributes nothing to society.

[trivas7]

The problem is this society holds the currency speculator as a genius while instead he makes money by manipulating a situation that contributes nothing to society.
That makes the currency specutlator the lazy one, IMHO. What value does he add to society? Nada.

[gla22]

That makes the currency specutlator the lazy one, IMHO. What value does he add to society? Nada.
yeah that is what i was trying to say. These people make millions and contribute nothing.

[The Intransigent Faction]

yeah that is what i was trying to say. These people make millions and contribute nothing.

Yeah, sorry about that. I misread.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I don't believe in welfare or handouts.
I agree; and indeed, no socialist believes in welfare.

Those people on welfare - why are they on welfare? Because they are unemployed. Why does unemployment exist? Because of capitalism. The leading apologists of capitalism have already admitted that unemployment is an inevitable result of the capitalist economic system - see Milton Friedman's work on the "natural rate of unemployment."

Whether the people on welfare are "lazy" or not is irrelevant, because capitalism works in such a way that someone has to be unemployed.


The problem is this society holds the currency speculator as a genius while instead he makes money by manipulating a situation that contributes nothing to society.
Good point. And some food for thought: What is the difference between a wealthy capitalist who made millions on the stock market and a really skillful and intelligent thief? They both put a lot of effort and thought into acquiring their money - that doesn't mean they earned it or deserve it.

[Red Lobster]

Based on your second paragraph, it's safe to conclude you haven't read even the first volume of Das Kapital. The "Marginalist Revolution," ha. If we quizzed you over marginalism and Marx' LTV theory entail, would you fail like Baconator did? Let's start: how come Jevons didn't find marginalism and LTV contradictory?

Rigidness of Marxism? :laugh: That is why we have self-declared Marxists disagreeing over issues like the importance of feudalism, if dialectics is applicable, and whether or not there needs to be a transition stage.

Grow up, kid.





Who or what is Baconator?
That guy on oi?
He looks smart.I disagree with politics but his points are good and its time we abandon labor theory of value.We must master bourgeois economics and use it for our advantage.

Feudalism was stage before capitalism. Capitalism was better but still slavery for proletariat. Capitalism will create abundance and socialism will be new synthesis. This is material forces of history and undeniable. But I don't want to wait for whatever. Too much proletariat suffering. The revolution must happen again in first world country to show the West socialism works. The proletariats must control government with heroic leaders and destroy all remnants of capitalist elite. I do not know if central planning is good idea. Bourgeois economists,really austrian kind,proved to be right about central planning because it is impossible to work in modern economy. I still think over a revolutionary way to use the market economy to our advantage. That is the way to go.