Libertarian Socialism

No, I put that up to show how well China has done since they stopped being communist.

How do those work then?

Minarchist works for that.
See AS&U

All subjugation is wrong user

>To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.

>successful
>socialism

No.

>are there any examples of societies without a class of people who own all the capital via control of wealth in the form of money and purchase of labour that have lasted a long time

lol good one. there are zero industrialised countries that have managed to abolish money and its ability to concentrate value for a group of people. They might have managed it in revolutionary catalonia, but the ruskies fucked over the anarchists, so that doesn't meet your criteria of "lasting a decent period of time"

Probably most of human existence up to the agricultural revolution perhaps.

>Implying a state of no subjugation is possible.

IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT IS OUGHT

Do you really think we can go back to a society of hunter gatherers?

Are you arguing that is isn't possible but it ought to be?

What I said had no ought, only is.

It*

I'm arguing that even if it is impossible we should still try.
DO THE IMPOSSIBLE
SEE THE INVISIBLE
ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWER

no, no I don't. I'm placing my hopes on machines making human labour irrelevant. When capitalism no longer needs labour, the system won't be socially acceptable, leading to either total collapse as people forcibly try to gain access to goods and services or a horribly totalitarian government that has enslaved the population to whatever it wants in return for food (a kind of neo-serfdom), or a roboutopia socialist paradise where machines provide everything for everyone.

probably not going to be the nice future though

I'd rather be coerced by an institution that is at least nominally acting in the interests of the people, than one that is acting only in the interests of corporate profits and market domination.

Libertarian socialism is just libertarianism.

Libertarianism did not originally think what Americans think it means.

Maximum democracy

I did say ALL subjugation if you'd remember

>Acting only in the interests of corporate profits

Seriously, they make profits through supplying people's demands. That's something people don't understand about capitalism.

For every bad company there are 10 good ones.

There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.

>Tyranny of the majority

Hell yeah it is.

False

>through supplying people's demands
>implying people make totally 100% rational purchasing decisions 100% of the time that can't be in any way influenced by advertising, ignorance, research suppression or social pressures

Prove me wrong.

>China is no longer communist.

2/3rds of the economy is government controlled.

Yeah, and that means it isn't communist.

It wasn't communist to begin with, it was aiming towards communism. Xioping just decided to make there be means of production to seize.

You have the burden of proof for your statement without any backing evidence. Since I was responding to you I don't have to prove it until you give some evidence.

Actually you made the original post so you made the statement without any backing evidence.

And in my experience when people pull "muh burden of proof", it simply means they can't prove it.

40%

It's 2016!

>Implying you know what people need more than they do

We are arguing over your comment of "there is no ethical consumption in capitalism".

When people dont see the need for proof,it simply means they can't prove it. Prove that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism please.

What does anything have to do with rationality? Regardless of how rational or not a mans decision is, it is his demand that creates these companies.

If anything, the more rational the better products you will have under capitalism.

Which itself was a comment to your initial claim.

>For every bad company there are 10 good ones.

For which is still no proof, but a lot of
>no u

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that people can buy stuff that is ultimately harmful or unnecessary - whether that's to the environment, to their health, to worker conditions, etc - due to deliberately being left in the dark about how that product came about. I actually believe people DO make the best decisions - so long as they know what it is they're buying. I get the feeling a lot more people would avoid factory-farmed meat if they knew the threat that massive overuse of antibiotics posed to our collective health, for example.

>What are pigovian taxes to fix markets where externalities exist

Capitalism doesn't mean pure laissez faire.
Governments are there to step in/regulate when markets fail.

I bullshitted that claim, but that doesn't mean your "no ethical consumption" claim was correct, which is what I was asking for proof of. At least I own up when I bullshit.

k

responsable.net/sites/default/files/myth_ethical_consumer.pdf

>If anything, the more rational the better products you will have under capitalism.

That's what I'm arguing. I'm saying that people often DON'T make rational decisions (i.e. decisions made in the best interest of both the consumer and the society) because people often aren't aware of all the facts, or because they might not have any other option.

A lot of disadvantaged people only have the ability to purchase things from Walmart, for example. And Walmart uses this fact to criminally underpay its employees, because it understands that the demand for their hyper-cheap products will always outweigh the social pressure to increase their wages, since a lot of people just can't reasonably expect to be able to buy things if their prices go up.

Fable of the Bees.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fable_of_the_Bees

>implying people make totally 100% rational purchasing decisions 100% of the time that can't be in any way influenced by advertising, ignorance, research suppression or social pressures
That also aplies to democracy and liberty as well. The difference is that the consumer just hurts himself if misguided,whilebin the other cases he can hurt other peopl

Another Burkeposter!

The thing is, in a free liberal capitalistic society those people have all the chances in the world to become aware of any bad facts, the options are always there in a capitalistic society.

However, under socialism these people would be shot for asking questions about the facts and the only other option is to not buy whatever they wanted to buy.

>walmart
>criminally underpay its employees

If you're not happy with what you are paid at walmart, go look for another job that pays you more. It's as simple as that.

>The difference is that the consumer just hurts himself if misguided
No, he might also be supporting organizations whose goals run opposite to greater society's.

>he might also be supporting organizations whose goals run opposite to greater society's.
How do you determine this? Please dont give me a meme answer.

>I have no idea what this is
>But I'm still going to talk shit and make presumptions about it haha!

>The thing is, in a free liberal capitalistic society those people have all the chances in the world to become aware of any bad facts, the options are always there in a capitalistic society.
That's exactly what he's arguing against though. Even if they were aware of these facts they may have no possible alternatives because they can only afford to shop there.
>However, under socialism these people would be shot for asking questions about the facts and the only other option is to not buy whatever they wanted to buy.
You clearly have no idea what Socialism is. Not every socialist society is an authoritarian Stalinist hell on earth. It is entirely possible in socialist societies for example Libertarian socialist ones that there can be numerous industries that produce one specific good using totally different means.
>>walmart
>>criminally underpay its employees
>If you're not happy with what you are paid at walmart, go look for another job that pays you more. It's as simple as that.
As was said before that's exactly what he's trying to educate you on. I can assure you that if you go to Wal-Mart and ask them if they enjoy working there they will all say no. They work there because they can't get a job anywhere else.

>You clearly have no idea what Socialism is. Not every socialist society is an authoritarian Stalinist hell on earth. It is entirely possible in socialist societies for example Libertarian socialist ones that there can be numerous industries that produce one specific good using totally different means.
Socialism without a strong goverment and great deal of coertion would never work. Libertarian socialism is a meme ideology.

t. Stalin

I see no arguments here.
Just a smug laughing man gif and a half ass rebuttal that's practically meaningless.

How are you going to maintain the means of production totally subsudized without a great deal of goverment intervention and coersion? Or do you believe that people wouldnt try to break the socialist sustem,if the goverment didnt heavily regulated?

All ideologies are the same in practice

>What is state paid education for the poor?

>How are you going to maintain the means of production totally subsudized without a great deal of goverment intervention and coersion?
Why must the government subsidise the country's industries? If they subsidize it then they practically own it meaning that if would no longer be socialism but state capitalism.
>Or do you believe that people wouldnt try to break the socialist sustem,if the goverment didnt heavily regulated?
If they wished to break a Libertarian socialist system then they would have to challenge every other member of society who were in favour of it too.

Please tell me about it then, oh enlightened one.

So if every kid wanted to achieve a decent, middle class standard of living then they could all just study at their fine public school, get good enough grades to then specialize to get into a middle class career that's in demand and live their life comfortably ever after?
But of course, its so obvious! But then why do poor people even exist!?

>libertarian socialist
>posts China
lol.
China has state capitalism since the 80s.

Here ya go.
lmgtfy.com/?q=Libertarian Socialism

>Poor people can't learn anything that will increase their pay.
>There are no job vacancies that people could take if they retrained

Lots of people didn't bother in school when they were young. Giving them a second chance can make them richer is many cases.

Pls. Some people are doom to poverty like it or not. Poverty is the natural state of mankind. Unproductive people are doomed to it. Unless you just expend trillions of dolars on welfare,which would just destroy the economy in the long run

Mind pinpointing where in my post I stated or even implied either of those things?

>natural state of mankind
>natural
>state
>of mankind.

And by the way, nowhere did Marx or Engels say that unproductive yet capable individuals deserve to be on welfare. Welfare is a product of Capitalist society, because even the unproductive can contribute to the system by being given money to purchase products and stimulate Capitalism.

>So if every kid wanted to achieve a decent, middle class standard of living then they could all just study at their fine public school, get good enough grades to then specialize to get into a middle class career that's in demand and live their life comfortably ever after?
But of course, its so obvious! But then why do poor people even exist!?

>Public school
>I'm speaking about state funded education

Yes. Humans were always poor,until very recently.
> And by the way, nowhere did Marx or Engels say that unproductive yet capable individuals deserve to be on welfare.
Never said the opposite. But the only way to have 0% poverty is through welfare. You can achieve good rates of poverty without this,but there would always be poverty due shity decissions,diseases or the like

And it is somehow the capitalist systems fault that some people can't get a better job than working at wal mart? Give me a break.

>How are you going to maintain the means of production totally subsudized without a great deal of goverment intervention and coersion?
>Why must the government subsidise the country's industries? If they subsidize it then they practically own it meaning that if would no longer be socialism but state capitalism.
I missed a word. Publicly owned and subsudize. Most public companies would have to be subsidized mate. Most companies run on debt/savings in the first 3 years. If the goverment doesnt subsidize the industries,the countries economy would be reduced to pretty rudimentary stuff,and would mean going backwards economically.
>>Or do you believe that people wouldnt try to break the socialist sustem,if the goverment didnt heavily regulated?
>If they wished to break a Libertarian socialist system then they would have to challenge every other member of society who were in favour of it too.
So basically using goverment force,or you mean militias? Either way it has little of libertarian,as it just opposes free asociation,and libertarianism is mostly about that. Seeing that there would be no subsidies and the local industry would collapse,dont worry,that noone would oppose an alternative.

Being a socialist is like being logical positivist, it's a thoroughly debunked political ideology that failed all over the world.
All we have left is democratic socialist reforms that are totally different anyway.

You mean social democrat, theres a difference.

No, it's the capitalist system's fault that working at Walmart is a shitty job.

Why? It is a job that anyone could do. Expecting it to be a good job is dumb,and only very dumb people should work there

Nothing wrong with being dumb.

I'm not saying you should expect it to be a good job (it isn't by virtue of capitalism), I'm saying it could be a much better job were the means of production controlled democratically.

>I'm not saying you should expect it to be a good job (it isn't by virtue of capitalism), I'm saying it could be a much better job were the means of production controlled democratically.
Kek. This theory has so many plotholes that is not even funny. "Democratly owned" companies would be a fucking disaster as Shanika,may have no clue about market tendencies,and vote to buy dumb crap. And this is not counting the way that wages are voted,which would probably kill the balance that the old owners built,and create inefficiencies,and specially internal conflicts.And even then,people work there due safety,working for a wage is conformism. Those people could probaly get some loans to open their own little bussiness,but is way riskier and requires way more work and planning ability. You can open cooperatives in capitalist countries,most people just dont have the will nor the risk acceptance to do it.

We already have democratically owned companies, they're called co-ops and largely work fine.

In the case of total global communism isn't also worth noting that companies as large as walmart would probably disintegrate into more regional confederations of stores.

>And even then,people work there due safety,working for a wage is conformism. Those people could probaly get some loans to open their own little bussiness,but is way riskier and requires way more work and planning ability. You can open cooperatives in capitalist countries,most people just dont have the will nor the risk acceptance to do it.
No one wants to work at Walmart. The people who work there do so because they can't get a job anywhere else, and likely for similar reasons wouldn't be approved for a loan to open a small business.

Additionally this is no risk at all in this instance, as the punishment for failure is having to work for a living which they already do. The reason they all don't open small business is not for a lack of risk-taking as they have nothing to lose, the reason is opening a business requires a certain level of initial economic advantage to enter into that minimum-wage labourers generally would not have available.

>Tyranny of the majority

And thus we see the need for a non-democratic, yet still capitalist society. As naught but a humble computer scientist, I ask /b/ how we can escape such tyranny, yet remain free.

>Dedicated individualist checking in.

>Individualist
>Supports capitalism.

S P O O K E D

>>responsable.net/sites/default/files/myth_ethical_consumer.pdf
>www.responsable.net
>responsable

Call me crazy, but I'd rather not take advice from someone who can't even spell "responsible"

We need some democracy, but certain unalienable rights to be guaranteed by the state, to prevent the worst excesses of democracy. Not rights given by God or natural rights, but some agreed by society as part of the social contract.

It's not an English language site, you thick cunt. "Responsable" is just Spanish for "responsible". Not to mention the site hosting the pdf did not publish, nor write the book.

responsable.net/

>China
>libertarian socialist

I'm by no means a proponent of libertarian socialism, but the ideology assumes that those involved in such a system would consent to socialism and therefore there would be no need of an authoritarian government.

I agree we need /some/ democracy, but not everyone is equal. It's not right that a PhD in economics has an equal vote as an unemployed dole bludger. We're not all equal, and that needs to be acknowledged.

>Unashamed intellectual elitist

Well in that case, fair enough. I withdraw my criticism.

>It's not right that a PhD in economics has an equal vote as an unemployed dole bludger
You're right.

The man who was wise enough not to waste money and time on a university education in pseudoscience deserves the greater vote.

>Implying a state of no subjugation is possible.
It is, it's just that governments always seek to destroy such states. Literally every successful anarchist system has been destroyed by governments.

>implying people make totally 100% rational political decisions 100% of the time that can't be in any way influenced by government-controlled advertising, ignorance, research suppression or threat of violence

So you seriously believe that the uneducated are superior? Good luck in life; You'll need it.

Amazing what 30% freer markets can do

Capitalism a best

1. In this specific instance NEETs are superior
2. In general economics grads are inferior.

I'm not surprised a /b/ pleb is pro-wagecuck and bought the economics meme.

>They work there because they can't get a job anywhere else.
And this is because the government targets local small businesses with taxation and regulations while empowering corporations like walmart via bailouts and other protective legislation. Corporations use the government to kill competition, and thus we are here now where people are forced to work at walmart. Take the government and its legislation out of the equation, then walmart would be forced to raise wages or face collapse.

>We already have democratically owned companies, they're called co-ops and largely work fine.
They have nothing of democratic. There are people that call the shots there,and coops reinvest very little in capital,so they lag behind in wider markets,and can only work on a very small scale.
> No one wants to work at Walmart. The people who work there do so because they can't get a job anywhere else, and likely for similar reasons wouldn't be approved for a loan to open a small business.
False. Dont know why you have to lie on the internet. There are lots of people that want to work in a very stress light job,with little qualification,even if the pay is small.
> Additionally this is no risk at all in this instance, as the punishment for failure is having to work for a living which they already do.
Do you know that debts get carried even if you default right,in most cases? It can cripple a person economically for a decade or so.
>The reason they all don't open small business is not for a lack of risk-taking as they have nothing to lose, the reason is opening a business requires a certain level of initial economic advantage to enter into that minimum-wage labourers generally would not have available.
If you can give a guarantee,they usually give you the loan. Most people own cars,really is not that hard to open a bussiness if you save little money and you are willing to take risks,just look how many Chinese or pakis open groceries stores world wide,and I can tell you that they didnt come in a better socioeconomic position than a Walmarkt worker. It is simple. Some people,if not most, preffer to have a wage,and dont have to worry about debt,finances,dealing with providers or competition.

>unalienable rights
>guaranteed by the state
MUH THIN BLUE LINE

I'm fascinated now. Please explain to me how less education equates to a more valuable person. Explain how being more knowledgeable, more educated, and more intelligent makes someone better equipped to contribute to the functioning of their nation. If you're not wrong, and NEETs are the superior beings, I will happily an hero, because a world where stupidity rules is not a world I want to live in. Prove me wrong, and I'll drink metho and set my lungs on fire for your amusement.