Give me a non-autistic ideology applicable to today's world. I don't wanna hear about communism, neoliberalism...

Cultural Capitalism

Socialism (not communism)

Welfare state a shit if it relies on taxing the rich. The only was a welfare state works is socialism, where the class that controls resources and pays taxes is the class that benefits from the resources and benefits from taxes. Otherwise you just have a bunch of angry robot owners complaining about all the welfare recipients.

It's not, unless you can provide a reason why a capitalist would want to be social.

"Socialism in one nation"

Considering that nations are the default level of polity that has economic sovereignty, it makes sense that revolutions happen on the scale of nations.

Environmentalism.

Environmentalism only works in concert with socialism. Because the capitalist doesn't mind shitting up your environment as long as he can make his own better.

The radical ideology of not having an ideology and dealing with things on a case by case basis because the Universe doesn't care about your absract philosophical views.

Even rationalism is irrational, because sometimes being irrational is the best way to get what you want. Someone could make a post that is completely rational, but if you can post a picture of an ugly nerd and some ironi greentext and make people laugh, they'll view the post as absurd anyway.

Fair Trade National Social Liberalism

S T O I C I S M

>/pol/ special snowflakeism: the post

When will they learn actual political theorists like Marx?

Case by case gets you involved in a whole lot of game theory. It's much simpler if you just create the material conditions where people want to be socialist. In fact, it's treating things case by case which makes irrationalism rational. Better to just be socialist.

This sounds like socialism.

Social Ecology

>ideology
>non-autistic
You're in too deep already.

everyone has an ideology, you cant escape it. even zizek. it's just a map for giving meaning to disparate shit that happens in the world.

Socialism is the best fit for creating a society full of virtuous individuals with little suffering.

Are you a communist or a socialist?

How socialist is social ecology?

>Better to just be socialist.

Its not though. Socialism creates the conditions for dictatorship, which is bad because one small group of people are not smarter than many people. Capitalism harnesses greed and turns it into productivity.

It's entirely possible to design modern democratic systems that minimize that risk as much as we are able to manage. What have constitutions done, if not exactly that, to Capitalism for the past four centuries?

No, Stalinism is not real socialism. It's not capitalism that harnesses greed, it's the work-reward relationship, which is created by the market. In fact, capitalism, that is exclusive private control over capital, encourages capitalists to often limit productivity and stifle competition to maximize individual profit. Please educate yourself about socialism.

They haven't made capitalism into socialism.

Distributism.

Stalinism is as much socialism as National Socialism is fascism.

Distributism and mutualism are just ways of pussyfooting around socialism.

But national socialism is socialism. It's not Stalinism either even though Stalin claimed Stalinism was just socialism in one nation. Nazism isn't real socialism or fascism either.

anarcho-neetism

>Distributism and mutualism are just ways of pussyfooting around socialism.
Accept for, you know, all the private property and small government that everyone has. Just because it solves the same problems socialism seeks to solve doesn't make it the same when the methods are so different.

pretty socialist? i duno. if you dont like that there's Deep Ecology, or good old Environmentalism.

That's just communism. Communism comes after socialism.

No. It's just property assigned to private individuals and in all cases workers own or otherwise have access to the means of production. It's a social order that attempts to remain decentralized, but the social order on the whole is socialist when it assigns property. This nitpicking of distibutism is just tautology about what private means and tiptoeing around the means by which workers get the means of production. Guilds are basically syndicates. Usury, the basest form of capitalism, is banned. People who are unironically hardcore distributivist or mutualist are usually really just socialists who have been brainwashed into thinking socialism is the same as Stalinism and want socialism under any other name.

Except they don't just "reassign" or ban private property like some kind of authoritarian socialist, they use taxes, incentives, tariffs, regulations, trust busting, and the guilds to gradually ensure that small private businesses are favored over large ones. I don't know where you got the idea that "usury" (although I'm assuming you're talking about interest in general, not specifically loan-sharking) is banned, although distributists do tend to favor co-op banks.

Ultimately whether the property is private or not is a huge deal though. Just because most people will end up owning their own means of production does not mean that the distinction doesn't matter.

>authoritarian socialist
see
>People who are unironically hardcore distributivist or mutualist are usually really just socialists who have been brainwashed into thinking socialism is the same as Stalinism and want socialism under any other name.

Okay, so let's say distributists are just a different version of socialists who want widespread private property and small government. What is your problem with that?

>Okay, so let's say distributists are just a different version of socialists who want widespread private property
It's not really private if it can be taxed away to be incentivized to other citizens. Regulations are another way of controlling the use of the means of production, limiting the private rights of the individual to do with their property as they please. This is different from being taxed away by a rent seeking authoritarian state to use for it's own administrative bureaucracy and military, and co-opting of vital functions of the nation, to ensure it's own dominance.

>small government
You seem really stuck on the idea that socialism means big government. However, if big factories and big governments turn out to be more efficient than smaller ones, people will give up rights on paper for liberty in practice, and go to that which gives them the most of what they desire.

>What is your problem with that?
I'm just saying it's basically socialism pretending to not be socialism.

>I'm just saying it's basically socialism pretending to not be socialism.
Okay, but given the terrible success rate of socialism, why shouldn't distributists at least get themselves away from the same mindset and methods of operating that socialists have?

That wasn't even real socialism. Anticapitalists just liked it because they thought being a USSR satellite was the closest thing one could get to real life socialism, and that was when the USSR was going strong and seemed to be catching up. It's now after the fall of the USSR that we pretend they were on equal footing and lost to capitalism when they started from behind to begin with. Now that you know Stalinism is a failure, you're free to consider other forms of real socialism and not feel like you have to settle for Stalinism as supposedly being the only viable form of real life socialism.

>That wasn't even real socialism
First off, not once have I ever even brought up the USSR. But if we're going to talk about it anyway, how is the USSR not socialists? You say distributism is socialism despite having private property and private ownership of the means of production. Yet the USSR doesn't count as "real socialism"?

Anyways, even if you are right, it's only natural and right for distributists to want to seperate themselves from socialists. There's been far too many "not real socialist" countries that have gone down the gutter, so when a good "version of socialism" comes up that favors private property and small government like distributism, then naturally they aren't going to want to be mixed in with the more authoritarian failures.

Are you one of those nuts who think the majority will magically agree to implement socialism and everyone else will willfully give up their possessions and we will happily twirl in the tall grass like in a Malick movie, we will take care of our unicorns and share our porverty with a smile forever and ever.

>First off, not once have I ever even brought up the USSR.
You mentioned socialism's track record, and complain about big government. It's pretty obvious you're inferring the USSR and it's sphere of influence.

>But if we're going to talk about it anyway, how is the USSR not socialists? You say distributism is socialism despite having private property and private ownership of the means of production. Yet the USSR doesn't count as "real socialism"?
See, this is you being brainwashed, as mentioned earlier. People like you think the only qualification you need to be socialist is to not be capitalist. You can have a state that is both not socialist and not capitalist.

>Anyways, even if you are right, it's only natural and right for distributists to want to seperate themselves from socialists. There's been far too many "not real socialist" countries that have gone down the gutter, so when a good "version of socialism" comes up that favors private property and small government like distributism, then naturally they aren't going to want to be mixed in with the more authoritarian failures.
But distributism isn't a particularly good form of socialism except for the fact that it pays lip service to private property and the church, and tries to focus on the essential.

How do the words "seize" and "revolution" imply that at all?

>You can have a state that is both not socialist and not capitalist.
But you can't have a state that is capitalist AND socialist. Distributism is capitalist, therefore it is not socialist.

>distributism isn't a particularly good form of socialism except for the fact that it pays lip service to private property and the church
If there is a good form of socialism that has actually been tried and found long lasting success, please point me to it. Also, not sure where you're getting the whole church thing from. Sure, it's based on Catholic social teaching, but that doesn't mean it has any ideas in it that actually favor the church.

National Libertarian Socialism.

Basic income supported by nationalized industries and extensive constitutionally protected freedoms for the country's own people, but ruthless foreign policy, high tariffs on imports, and strict immigration limits to keep foreigners from flooding in for the gibsmedats.

>But you can't have a state that is capitalist AND socialist. Distributism is capitalist, therefore it is not socialist.
No, most distributists would argue that distributism occupies a space outside of capitalism and socialism. But you are stuck in the world view that the only two systems are capitalism and not-capitalism(socialism).

>If there is a good form of socialism that has actually been tried and found long lasting success, please point me to it.
Should I apply the same criteria to your ideology? Only ideologies that have already been tried and are shown to be successful are candidates for trying? The reasons for the USSR model failing were quite obvious from the start, and people voiced objection to it from the start. It was bad, but even then it didn't do as bad as people pretend it did.

>Also, not sure where you're getting the whole church thing from. Sure, it's based on Catholic social teaching, but that doesn't mean it has any ideas in it that actually favor the church.
It pays lipservice to the church by not calling it an opiate and saying it will wither away.

Tariffs are bad though. You should only apply tariffs when there is an associated cost to your economy of importing.

Unironically this, but with rights ensured through a culture that puts emphasis on the right and duty to overthrow an oppressive government rather than words written on a document that must be enforced by another government institution. The former way means you're not claiming you're infallible and placing issues outside the realm of question, and avoiding the tautology of only governments being able to enforce their constitution.

>No, most distributists would argue that distributism occupies a space outside of capitalism and socialism
It is true that most distributists say that their position is third-positionist, similar to fascism. But this isn't because it is part-socialist, part-capitalist like many of the mixed economies of today, but because it solves the economic problems of socialism and capitalism through its own unique method.

>Should I apply the same criteria to your ideology?
My ideology does not require the tearing down of any entire system of economics. It is entirely possible with all the powers the US government has today (and even a pre-1942 government would have). It's just a moderate remixing of the taxes, tariffs, and regulations, as opposed to an entirely different system.

>It pays lipservice to the church by not calling it an opiate and saying it will wither away.
That's not lipservice, that's choosing not to be needlessly hostile to the church.

Yes yes we get it, user. Praise socialist movement, praise Lenin, praise the working class, etc. There you go. Can we go back to talking another ideology?

Also, with an emphasis on regional rights above majority rule. The feeling that one is being ruled over is always a recipe for disaster, and if two regions disagree about something the correct answer is to either find some way to make both regions happy or just split them, rather than just telling the people from the less populous one to fuck off.

youl all think im trolling, but from my experience, anarcho-capitalism in combination with anarcho-communism works perfectly

yes i know it dosent seem to make sense because theory, but fuck theory, in practice it works perfectly, the two complement each other like clockwork, anarcho-communism provides the framework, communal infrastructure and tribal authority, while an-cap gets the means to make it all work smoothly without taxes or questions asked

Tariffs are bad if you want to maximize the GDP, but they can be a pretty effective means of artificially propping up middle class jobs at the expense of the profitability of companies, essentially serving as a soft form of redistribution.

>It is true that most distributists say that their position is third-positionist, similar to fascism. But this isn't because it is part-socialist, part-capitalist like many of the mixed economies of today, but because it solves the economic problems of socialism and capitalism through its own unique method.
Except it doesn't? It says workers should control the means of production. It's like saying capitalism is fine as long as we codify it actually operates on socialist principles.

>My ideology does not require the tearing down of any entire system of economics.
It's like he doesn't even know about pre-Marxian Ricardian market socialism. Let me guess, you think socialism means anti-market, and capitalism means market don't you? Or you think socialism means equality or something.

>It is entirely possible with all the powers the US government has today (and even a pre-1942 government would have). It's just a moderate remixing of the taxes, tariffs, and regulations, as opposed to an entirely different system.
No it's not. That's not even distributism. That's social democracy.

>That's not lipservice, that's choosing not to be needlessly hostile to the church.
Marx made an observation about the sociao-economic role of the church and a prediction based on that. That's not being needlessly hostile. It was the USSR that was needlessly hostile by trying to force atheism.

Before seeking thirdwayism, or compromisism, you should take a moment to actually study the two sides first.

Also good for increasing your nations power compared to other nations. A nation that isn't reliant on foreign industries doesn't have to worry about sanctions hurting them, so they have more power in diplomacy.

usualy the majority agrees to pretty much anything, they agree to anything capitalism has shit on them for generations now, they agreed to communism in its worst variations, they agreed to fascism all the way, they agree to theocracies and corrupt democracies and every form of bullshit, worrying about what the majority will agree to is like worrying wheater a pig will eat its feed

but more importantly, what possesions does everione else have to willfully give up? their car and their laptop? smartphone and the new nikes? their mortgage loans? what?

>It says workers should control the means of production
Except it doesn't. It is perfectly possible and fine for someone to work for someone else for a wage under distributism. It is just preferred and favored for you to own your own business.

>Let me guess, you think socialism means anti-market, and capitalism means market don't you?
Who knows what socialism means anymore. Apparently socialism can have private property now and private ownership of the means of production now, so whatever socialism means is lost to me.

>No it's not. That's not even distributism. That's social democracy.
Umm...yes it is? I never said the USA is a distributist government, just that it is possible with all the US government systems we have in place.

>Marx made an observation about the sociao-economic role of the church and a prediction based on that. That's not being needlessly hostile.
And making a different observation, or not making an observation at all, is not paying lip service. Not everyone is going to come to the same conclusion as Marx on the role of the Church, but that doesn't mean they are paying lip service to it.

Tariffs are bad if you want to ensure standards of living too, because the pseudo-tax for redistribution comes from the consumers of goods paying increased prices, and for most commodities, that's mostly other normal working class people. People just like it more than universal income because they can pretend that other people working hard in other countries is unfair and doesn't make them comparatively lazy. They think, if only I had a fair chance to earn that money, of course by making it unfair for everyone else. Universal income doesn't come at the cost of economic inefficiency from anti-competition and where the taxes come from to pay for it can be targeted.

At the cost of crippling your own economy, and also be more willing to start wars over little shit. Those can also be considered costs to your economy if it allows another country to take control and advantage of your economy. Which is why tariffs are justified.

>associated cost
What, like the destruction of the middle class, and an increased chance that the proletarianized mass will overthrow the government and kick off an orgy of terror and murder? I'd call that an associated cost to our zero tariff policy. Meanwhile, in China, there is a combined tariff and non-tariff barrier for imports equivalent to 35%+ tariff. Karl Marx loved free trade.

>Except it doesn't.
Yes it does.

>It is perfectly possible and fine for someone to work for someone else for a wage under distributism.
Nothings stopping you from doing that, but it's not going to be because of lack of access to the means of production.

>Who knows what socialism means anymore.
It's pretty easy to look up.

>Apparently socialism can have private property now and private ownership of the means of production now, so whatever socialism means is lost to me.
Except it would be heavily regulated. In essence making the property under the control of the state. It's saying that the state has ultimate control over the property, but they will let you operate as if you had private control as long as you stay within the rules. Stricter rules than just criminal codes, or ensuring private property rights, rules concerning the distribution and fair use of the means of production.

>Umm...yes it is?
No it isn't.

>I never said the USA is a distributist government, just that it is possible with all the US government systems we have in place.
Because it's social democracy without the word social in it? An actual distributist society would be much further reaching that you imply. You're just talking about social democracy, but calling it distributist because you think Bernie Sanders is for limp wristed SJW white hating hippies and want to post pictures of Nazis.

>And making a different observation, or not making an observation at all, is not paying lip service. Not everyone is going to come to the same conclusion as Marx on the role of the Church, but that doesn't mean they are paying lip service to it.
You said even if distributism is just socialism, it doesn't have the baggage of being called socialism. That's basically lipservice.

But I'm a gommie :^)

>Nothings stopping you from doing that, but it's not going to be because of lack of access to the means of production.
Yeah, so? I could theoretically start up my own business too, but I choose not to. The fact that a worker can work for another person and not get the full product of his labor means that its not socialism.

>It's saying that the state has ultimate control over the property, but they will let you operate as if you had private control as long as you stay within the rules.
How is that any different from today? "Heavy regulation" is entirely subjective, the nordic countries in some ways are less regulated than the USA is, and in no way does socialism say that you have to run your business a certain way, merely that once it grows too big there will be penalties applied. Would you say the modern USA and European states are socialists?

>Because it's social democracy without the word social in it?
How? Social democracy doesn't have any of the favoritism towards small government and private enterprise that distributism does, don't go mangling definitions here.

>You said even if distributism is just socialism, it doesn't have the baggage of being called socialism. That's basically lipservice.
We were talking about the church, remember?

>Yeah, so? I could theoretically start up my own business too, but I choose not to. The fact that
The fact that it requires capital, or risky debt if you don't have capital?

>How is that any different from today? "Heavy regulation" is entirely subjective, the nordic countries in some ways are less regulated than the USA is, and in no way does socialism say that you have to run your business a certain way, merely that once it grows too big there will be penalties applied. Would you say the modern USA and European states are socialists?
The USA has lots of corporate loopholes. Nordic countries are self-regulated by unions outside of direct state regulation. I'd say if everyone has easy access to means of production and is not forced to work wage labor because of lack of access to means of production, you're starting to look pretty socialist.

>How? Social democracy doesn't have any of the favoritism towards small government and private enterprise that distributism does, don't go mangling definitions here.
Social democracy is anti-socialist. They love private enterprise. The only thing necessarily big about social democracy is the extent of taxes and redistribution. There have been movements for minimalist social democracy not based on highly bureaucratic welfare, but simple universal income. In American style democracy, social democracy tends to be big government because of the way legislation tends to get passed, by adding on bloat piecemeal.

>We were talking about the church, remember?
Yes, and socialism has the socialist baggage of the Marx quote and the USSR's atheism. It doesn't even mean that what Marx said was wrong. That stance of distributism makes it palatable.

>Nordic countries are self-regulated by unions outside of direct state regulation
Something that can also be accomplished with the guilds

>There have been movements for minimalist social democracy not based on highly bureaucratic welfare, but simple universal income
Distributism does not have universal basic income (theoretically it could, but I've never heard of it combined with distributism)

>In American style democracy, social democracy tends to be big government because of the way legislation tends to get passed, by adding on bloat piecemeal
Okay, so then it is not distributist. Distributism is expressly anti-big government.

>The fact that it requires capital, or risky debt if you don't have capital?
It would require capital and risk of debt even under a distributist system.

Lol where'd the Aral Sea go?

>Something that can also be accomplished with the guilds
Socialism is a kind of of society not a kind of state. Just like communism is a kind of society, and not a state at all. In a free market capitalist society, we actually rely on the state not being involved too much in capitalism, lest we end up with merchantilism, kleptocracy or state capitalism. The state is not the only structure that defines the rules of how society operates.

>Distributism does not have universal basic income (theoretically it could, but I've never heard of it combined with distributism)
I'm saying that social democracy does not necessarily favor big government, which you seem to imply. It does favor a government strong enough to collect high taxes to redistribute. Which is what your form of distributism supposedly is. I gave an example of a barebones form of social democracy. Your form of distributism is more narrow that social democracy, but seems to fall under the general umbrella. Actual distributism goes beyond what you said.

>Okay, so then it is not distributist. Distributism is expressly anti-big government.
I didn't say the USA was distributist. You were the one saying that distributism was somehow uniquely plausible in the USA. I was explaining why social democracy in the USA does not tend to favor small government. There have been many socialists that have called for smaller decentralized government and left-anarchists as well.

>It would require capital and risk of debt even under a distributist system.
In a distributist system, you have easy access to means of production. If everyone has access to the means of production, wages will tend to be around the product of labor give or take, minus the surplus from economies of scale.

"Easy" meaning there is less risk, less cost, and more opportunity to start your own business and own your own means of production. There is still risk and cost though, not everyone will have access to the means of production immediately, although the hope would be that eventually everyone would be capable of owning their own enterprise. I wouldn't just be able to start a farm or factory like it was nothing though, I'd likely need to borrow money from the local bank, or find some people to co-op with and have the necessary experience, likely gained through wage labor.

for moldbug
and great justice

Means of production would be widespread as possible and farm more people who owned the means of production than those that do not. Meaning access to meaningful self employment is pretty much within reach of everyone if they want it.

You really seem to be pushing for a watered down form of distributism which is "pls mr big corporation no bully worker and small business"

They would be more widespread, that is true. But just because the ownership of business becomes more common, that doesn't mean the capitalism of the system is diminished or the socialism is increased. An economy does not become "more socialist" just because Teddy Roosevelt decides to bust some trusts. That's largely why distributists use the term "third position" in relation to their ideology, it isn't quite typical wage labor capitalism, but it certainly isn't socialism either.

But capitalism is diminished. I know you long for heroic capitalism, but heroic capitalism existed mostly because of the conditions that were ripe with opportunity in early capitalism and industrialization. You are attempting to deny a natural development of capitalism where capital and MCM becomes increasingly more important. That does diminish capitalism.

Only if you think capitalism has to involve a few large companies employing many people with wages. Taxes, tariffs, and regulations have always been involved in capitalism, using those tools to promote certain enterprise does not make it less capitalist. Although I can see how the position of distributism might confuse capitalists or socialists, as it uses a capitalist system yet the workers largely own the means of production.

>Only if you think capitalism has to involve a few large companies employing many people with wages.
This is a natural development as capital becomes increasingly more important relative to labor. Haves and have-nots becomes about access to capital, not access to one's own labor. You're stuck in a mindset where you think you can somehow go back to early capitalism and give everyone ample opportunity without deindustrialization.

>Taxes, tariffs, and regulations have always been involved in capitalism, using those tools to promote certain enterprise does not make it less capitalist.
Yes, actually it does. Taxes, tariffs and regulations erode private property rights and the freedom of which you control private property. Enterprise and markets are not exclusive to capitalism.

>Although I can see how the position of distributism might confuse capitalists or socialists, as it uses a capitalist system yet the workers largely own the means of production.
Except that it does a lot to erode private property rights, as it uses taxes with the explicit purpose of preventing capitalists from doing with their capital as they please. Again, this is different from merely taxing to pay for state infrastructure. If you had a flat rate tax, that tax would not be socialist. There's a reason why ancaps think tax is theft.

>Although I can see how the position of distributism might confuse capitalists or socialists, as it uses a capitalist system yet the workers largely own the means of production.
It doesn't though. It tries to achieve as socialist of a goal as possible while retaining as much capitalism as possible.

Not to mention, how you keep a distributist society in a distributist state without it falling back into another system are dubious as best, especially the way you present it. It hardly seems like a stable equilibrium, just much wishful thinking about how things should be and how things would be better off if they were a certain way.

Like how anarchists usually lack a good explanation about how they stay in a state of anarchy and deal with the power vacuum issue, and just say people will be against governments because it's nice to not have a state and being stateless is how things should be.

>You're stuck in a mindset where you think you can somehow go back to early capitalism and give everyone ample opportunity without deindustrialization.
Why would deindustrialization be necessary? Co-ops and automation increasingly decrease the need for wage labor, but even if wage labor is needed in some areas, that is okay under distributism.

>Enterprise and markets are not exclusive to capitalism
Private ownership of the means of production is though.

>how you keep a distributist society in a distributist state without it falling back into another system are dubious as best
The same way you keep one economic system from reverting to another with any other system. Being socialist didn't stop Russia from eventually turning to capitalism, and it didn't stop the USA from eventually adopting some socialist policies. You just argue from the results that distributism is working, and the people vote based on how they feel the about that.

>It doesn't though. It tries to achieve as socialist of a goal as possible while retaining as much capitalism as possible.
Yes, I said this earlier. Unless you think it is impossible to achieve the socialist goals under a mostly capitalist system though, then I fail to see how this changes anything.

>Why would deindustrialization be necessary?
I didn't say it was. But you think you can magically conjure up opportunity for entrepreneurship.

>Co-ops
Socialist

>automation increasingly decrease the need for wage labor
Not to the benefit of anyone that doesn't own means of production, in other words automated robots. If you reduce the need for wage labor, and lack access to people obtaining machines, then people will tend to want socialism.

>but even if wage labor is needed in some areas, that is okay under distributism.
Are you aware that wage labor is also okay under socialism, the even the USSR had wage labor?

>Private ownership of the means of production is though.
Except when you get too big and get it taxed away so it can be redistributed.

>The same way you keep one economic system from reverting to another with any other system...You just argue from the results that distributism is working, and the people vote based on how they feel the about that.
That would require government being big enough to keep things in that state of equilibrium.

>Being socialist didn't stop Russia from
Not real socialismeventually turning to capitalism

>Yes, I said this earlier. Unless you think it is impossible to achieve the socialist goals under a mostly capitalist system though, then I fail to see how this changes anything.
In other words, it's basically an attempt as socialism by another name. It attempts to keep a veneer of capitalism, and supposedly remains capitalism by allowing limited capitalism under limited conditions, but it attempts to in essence be socialism by other means. Big government socialism is not the only form of socialism. And even this is wrong, because distributists tend to claim they are neither.

>But you think you can magically conjure up opportunity for entrepreneurship.
Those opportunities open up once the oligarchies and monopolies become heavily taxed and trust busted, leaving a market open for small businesses to take over.

>Socialist
I don't know how you can argue that co-ops are socialist, or at least uniquely socialist. It's just multiple people owning a business, it could be a family business or a partnership. It's still capable of employing wage labor, and it's not any more socialist than a single person owning a business.

>Not to the benefit of anyone that doesn't own means of production, in other words automated robots. If you reduce the need for wage labor, and lack access to people obtaining machines, then people will tend to want socialism.
Which is why we try to get as many people to be entrepreneurs as possible, so that many people will privately own the means of production.

>Except when you get too big and get it taxed away so it can be redistributed.
All capitalist countries today have taxes, I guess in your view they're all socialist?

>That would require government being big enough to keep things in that state of equilibrium.
Ummm...why? Are you implying that they would have to use propaganda and force to keep the distributist system? Why?

>Not real socialismeventually turning to capitalism
Look, I know that the USSR isn't socialism's finest example, but it is socialist. It is certainly socialist under the super broad brush that you've painted socialism at least. You're trying to apply socialism to capitalist success and then claim the the real socialist countries weren't socialist.

>In other words, it's basically an attempt as socialism by another name.
No. If the means of production are privately owned, then the attempt to get the workers to "own the means of production" takes on a different meaning.

I'm not really going to respond to your posts anymore, because this is just turning into an argument about how things are defined. But the primary issue is you take an absolutist view of what is means to be socialist, but refuse to do the same of what is means to be capitalist.

>Social ownership refers to the various forms of ownership for the means of production in socialist economic systems; encompassing public ownership, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity[1] and common ownership.
>Private property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities.[1] Private property is distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state entity; and from collective (or cooperative) property, which is owned by a group of non-governmental entities.

Okay, well it was nice. I just can't see how you can look at those definitions and come to the conclusion that distributism is socialist. I guess either way it is just an argument over words though.

Constitutional Monarchy. ;-)

Constitution fascism?

>He doesn't actually know how the national socialists structured their economy.

>Nazism
>fascism
Only Strasserism can be seen as truly fascist. Hitler didn't implement the corporatist sociopolitical system.

Christian Democracy

Anarcho-Syndicalism

Jesus Christ I hate the night of the long knives so fucking much. Strasserists knew the actual reason to hate the Jews, because they hates capitalists. Then they died, and capitalists are fine, it's just Jews that are bad. And now you have /pol/ unironically defending Jews because they're capitalists and capitalists are good. What the actual fuck.

Humanism

>ctrl+f centrism
>0 results

>Socialism (not communism)
>(not communism)
You just proved to us all that YOU are autistic. Congratulations, autist.

This.

Why do systems exist in the first place? Why can't you have capitalism mixed with communism mixed with socialism mixed with anarchoprimitivism?

>non-autistic
>ideology

You can only have one.

Sounds like socialism to me

Humans are a social creature, so best adapted to socialism.

>centrism
That's just Stalinism, not leftist or socialist enough. I hate how you centrists always try to purge the socialists.

Socialism isn't communism though.

Because we live in societies. And societies need socialism.

Pst. Hey kid. Socialism.

>It's another that wasn't real socialism/marxism episode, because my form of marxism is infallible and can therefore only succeed even though history proves the contrary, look how profound my brilliant mind is

cynicalpepe.jpeg

Co-ops are socialist.

If you have a monarchist welfare state that derives income from natural resources that it redistributes to citizens in the form of basic income so they don't revolt against you, is that socialist?

Constitutional socialism.

Clearly he wants real socialism, not Nazism.

Why do they always have to kill the socialists?

Is it socialism?

Did the workers control the means of production? Not even socialism.

>Is it socialism?
To the socialists on this thread, probably. To the rest of the world, no.

Anarchist Social Democracy

Market Anarchism without full private property mixing ideas from Democratic Confederalism, Georgism, Mutualism, Voluntaryism, Cellular Democracy, Distributism, Social Democracy and Libertarian Municipalism.