Layoffs coming...

[abandonconflict]

Libertarian socialism is not wage slavery.

Wage slavery is the exploitative practice of paying workers less than the value of the goods or services we provide and the oppressive practice of stealing the product of our labor, thereby subjecting us to the autocratic hierarchies characteristic of capitalist relations of production.

 

[Carthoris]

Kynes again insists that libertarian socialism is marxist because it requires state to control means of production. That is state socialism. That is not libertarian socialism. So now he redefines socialism to intrinsically mean that the state controls means of production which means therefore that socialism is synonymous with communism and that any philosophy which includes this word is by definition Marxist/communist. Kynes repeatedly ignores that libertarian socialism is a philosophy in which state does not control means of production because libertarian socialists are not statists. Kynes goes on to think he can redefine all philosophies which include the words democratic, anarcho and progressive, as Marxist. They aren't Marxist, they are simply anti-Randist.

Kynes is a Randist.

Ayn Rand collected social security.

I hold Ayn Rand higher than Karl Marx. I must agree that Kynes is wrong in this sense, however, I must also point out that state Socialism is just state Communism that hasn't hit stride, and that the same would be trust of Libertarian Socialism being the road to Libertarian Communism.

I think you should consider that the only party that truly moves towards the idea you want is the Libertarian one. After all, you can't make a decision to be socialism when the government is in control of your decisions. There are 2 paths to Libertarian Socialism as I see them. Free will decision or socialism and then acceptance. If you use the state force of socialism to implement your ideology and then people accept it because they know no other way, then I would have to say that is State Socialism more than Libertarian Socialism even though the result is the same. I could go on to explain it more, and use the nazi/roman analogies again, but why bother, you all know what I mean.

 

[Carthoris]

That does not change the fact that he needs workers far more than they need him.

I think it is a equal thing. Doubtful that the business owner will starve without the workers, however.

 

[abandonconflict]

Socialism: a system in which the STATE controls the economy, and all economic activity, and the STATE owns the "Means of Production" (which is factories,, farms mills, mines, timberlands, etc etc etc. all resource gathering and all industry) and the people serve the STATE as the STATE dictates, in such jobs and industries as the STATE requires.

Libertarianism: a system in which the person is sovereign, and does as he desires within the framework of established societal norms and a code of behavior, usually governed by laws. every person may own anything, and do with it as he pleases, provided his actions do not infringe on the liberties of others. should a dispute arise, the issue is settled by means of a jury of peers and a decision which is considered binding on both parties. contracts are sacred if entered into willingly, and a deal is a deal.

You are incorrect about socialism. In fact, google socialism, you'll notice Wikipedia is the top result and below the link, there are clearly two major forms of socialism. State socialism and libertarian socialism are those two. You have described state socialism. I also disagree with this philosophy.

Now notice that your definition of libertarianism does not include the word capitalism. That was nice and honest of you, thank you for being honest for once.

 

[Carthoris]

Libertarian socialism is not wage slavery.

Wage slavery is the exploitative practice of paying workers less than the value of the goods or services we provide and the oppressive practice of stealing the product of our labor, thereby subjecting us to the autocratic hierarchies characteristic of capitalist relations of production.

The profit of the company is the result of the managers ability to manage and thus of his labor. I fail to see the difference.

 

[Carthoris]

You are incorrect about socialism. In fact, google socialism, you'll notice Wikipedia is the top result and below the link, there are clearly two major forms of socialism. State socialism and libertarian socialism are those two. You have described state socialism. I also disagree with this philosophy.

Now notice that your definition of libertarianism does not include the word capitalism. That was nice and honest of you, thank you for being honest for once.

Your definition of capitalism is just as dishonest as the definition of socialism you seem to despise.

 

[abandonconflict]

I think it is a equal thing. Doubtful that the business owner will starve without the workers, however.

So you support unions then? You oppose child labor?

 

[abandonconflict]

Your definition of capitalism is just as dishonest as the definition of socialism you seem to despise.

Expound please.

 

[abandonconflict]

I fail to see the difference.

It is obvious that you fail to see a difference between wage slavery and capitalism. I do also.

 

[Dr Kynes]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism


Here comes another "THAT IS JUST MARXISM!" from Kynes. He alternates between "That is Marxism" and "explain it for me again". I know how this goes, if it doesn't toe the Rand line he will play the same tactics.

and AGAIN i read that shit.

it does NOT explain the MECHANISMS of "libertarian socialism" it simply discusses all the myriad and wonderful things it AINT.

no-one could read this bullshit wikipile of wikipuke and develop an understanding of what the fuck you are talking about.

it features NO specifics, No details, NO exposition, NO logic, NO consistency, and thus there is NO philosophy.

repeating the same wikipage does not constitute a definition of "libertarian socialism"

i even did your job for you and went all googletastic on "libertarian socialism" but unfortunately, with the exception of a single, incredibly breif blog post which basically says "it's not an oxymoron" (http://www.progress.org/2003/libsoc01.htm) and a LENGTHY and hyperbolic dissertation about how (once again) "it's not an oxymoron" and "everybody else is using the wrong words because in europe..." (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI1.html) which attempts to redefine EVERY word ever used by any left leaning thinker to mean basically "good things"

Socialism: voluntary associations, free people sharing all the world, with no STATE watching your every move, and everybody shares everything in a safe and structured environment without any structure. or mechanism of ensuring safety. ???
Liberty: see above.
Anarchy: see above
Democracy: see above
Freedom: see above
Progressive: see above
Left wing: see above
Communism: evil hate filled racist regime that allows the bosses to trample on the workers till the revolution comes... ????
Capitalism: see above
Enterprise: see above
Democracy: see above
Conservative: see above
Right Wing: see above
Marxism: see above

anyone who wishes to learn what your actually talking about with your "libertarian socialism" will be sorely disappointing, unless they can find the secret decoder ring in a box of Cracker Jacks.

 

[abandonconflict]

I hold Ayn Rand higher than Karl Marx.

I think you should consider that the only party that truly moves towards the idea you want is the Libertarian one.

I had to reduce this, honestly, the rest of what you said in the post was uneducated and not worthy of reply. Sorry to sound that way, but that just didn't make sense. You approach the philosophy of libertarian socialism with the persistent misconception that the state will control means of production (and therefore power). This is simply incorrect but I understand where this misconception comes from and why it is so pervasive. It has been ingrained into your generation by cold war fears. You simply need to understand that it is incorrect.

As for these two statements I quoted, I disagree with both Marx and Rand. Marx believed the state could be trusted not to become corrupt with power, Rand was just a selfish cunt.

As for your idea of the libertarian party and that I should adhere to it. I voted green party, Jill Stein. Aside from an Obama vote in 08, I have always voted this way, Nader.

 

[abandonconflict]

and AGAIN i read that shit.

anyone who wishes to learn what your actually talking about with your "libertarian socialism" will be sorely disappointing, unless they can find the secret decoder ring in a box of Cracker Jacks.

You simply need to learn to read. I'll let you keep alternating between "That's Marxism!" and "EXPLAIN IT FOR ME AGAIN!" while laughing at you.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I seriously hope you are not even beginning to suggest that I support Socialism as a government or believe it is ok. I am sure most here would agree with me when I say I am very Libertarian in my views. Did you even read my statements? Socialism could be without government backing if the private owners wished it. It isn't likely or even probable, but it isn't impossible. In the right situation it could possibly happen in some form. I am 100% property rights. Capitalism isn't a type of government, and neither is Socialism. They are types of economies. Libertarianism in government and Socialism in economy are not at odds if it isn't by government mandate. People can simply decide to be socialist with their own goods. It is almost impossible, but not entirely. I am sure much of what we do now on a every day basis would be 'impossible' when viewed by the people of the 1600's. To believe we might not change in the next 400 years to a point where we really wouldn't understand it is a pretty short sighted view. That being said: I will never again vote for a person who believes in state that forces Statism, Socialism, or Fascism on us. It just won't be. However, it is peoples rights to be Socialist if they want as long as they don't FORCE it on others. I must espouse this view because quite simply it is demanded by my Libertarian views of the world.

unbunch your bloomers homey.

your not getting it.

socialism means everything is OWNED by the state, thus precluding any free choice by the "Private Owners" since there ARE no "Private Owners".

if i own a farm, and put out a sign that reads: All Are Welcome, and let anybody who wants come in, till my land, and harvest the crops at their own discretion, thats a charitable preserve, i still own it but im sharing MY shit with you.

if i declare its no longer "my Farm" but it's "Our Farm" or "the Farm" and everybody shares and shares alike, thats a commune, and it is Communism.

untill i start giving orders to the members of my commune, and tell them to do as i command or GTFO. then it becomes Socialism.

when i slam the gates shut and shoot anyone who tries to leave,, then it's Stalinism.

when i starve my commune workers and brainwash them to worship me as a god, then it's North Korea.

socialism PRESUMES that anything (and also anyone) inside the state's borders belongs to the state (see Absolute Monarchy)
communism presumes that NOBODY OWNS ANYTHING and everybody shares the entire world (see Wooly Headed Dreamers)
capitalism presumes that SOMEBODY owns everything, and if you want to use it you must find that guy and rent it or buy it from him. (see Liberal Democracy)
anarchism presumes that I own everything, and i can prove it, if i am strong enough to hold it. (see Somalia)

so you see since "private ownership" is automatically invalid,, socialism awards all cash and prizes to the state,, and the state decides what meager pittance to allow the peasants.

 

[abandonconflict]

unbunch your bloomers homey.

your not getting it.

socialism means everything is OWNED by the state, thus precluding any free choice by the "Private Owners" since there ARE no "Private Owners".

if i own a farm, and put out a sign that reads: All Are Welcome, and let anybody who wants come in, till my land, and harvest the crops at their own discretion, thats a charitable preserve, i still own it but im sharing MY shit with you.

if i declare its no longer "my Farm" but it's "Our Farm" or "the Farm" and everybody shares and shares alike, thats a commune, and it is Communism.

untill i start giving orders to the members of my commune, and tell them to do as i command or GTFO. then it becomes Socialism.

when i slam the gates shut and shoot anyone who tries to leave,, then it's Stalinism.

when i starve my commune workers and brainwash them to worship me as a god, then it's North Korea.

socialism PRESUMES that anything (and also anyone) inside the state's borders belongs to the state (see Absolute Monarchy)
communism presumes that NOBODY OWNS ANYTHING and everybody shares the entire world (see Wooly Headed Dreamers)
capitalism presumes that SOMEBODY owns everything, and if you want to use it you must find that guy and rent it or buy it from him. (see Liberal Democracy)
anarchism presumes that I own everything, and i can prove it, if i am strong enough to hold it. (see Somalia)

so you see since "private ownership" is automatically invalid,, socialism awards all cash and prizes to the state,, and the state decides what meager pittance to allow the peasants.

You see Carthoris, he just can't move past the persistent view that socialism is defined as state control of everything. This is his basic premise and the hinge of all of his arguments. It is rather cute actually.

 

[cannabineer]

The profit of the company is the result of the managers ability to manage and thus of his labor. I fail to see the difference.

That is a bit like saying "the car goes down the road because the transmission is doing its job". Labor, management, officers, legal, consumers ... they're all necessary but not sufficient. Jmo. cn

 

[Dr Kynes]

You are incorrect about socialism. In fact, google socialism, you'll notice Wikipedia is the top result and below the link, there are clearly two major forms of socialism. State socialism and libertarian socialism are those two. You have described state socialism. I also disagree with this philosophy.

Now notice that your definition of libertarianism does not include the word capitalism. That was nice and honest of you, thank you for being honest for once.

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A SOURCE!!

read the communist manifesto and das kapital if you want to know what communism and socialism actually is.
Endlessly redefining what the word "IS" means is the same tired and weak ass game you have tried to play whenever somebody says "isnt that an oxymoron?"
You continue to attempt to change the actual meaning of words,, despite their consistent use for more than 100 years, as set forth in the MANY communist internationals,and as used by marx, engles, trotsky,,stalin, mao, mussolini,, hitler, spooner,, and all the rest.

simply declaring "Nuh Uhh!!" is not defining your position. nor5 is repeating the same statement over and over,, despite the fact that your statement was NOT a definition of your "philosophy" the first 10 times either.

libertarianism, socialism, communism, and anarchy havve meanings. and those meanings are not subject to your re-imagining,, nor do you have the power to give them a "gritty reboot".

your school of argument is very much like that of stalin, which is why you remind me so much of him.

"To win the argument you must first seize control of the language." ~stalin.

 

[abandonconflict]

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A SOURCE!!
"To win the argument you must first seize control of the language." ~stalin.

So you want to limit what I can use as a source, but I'm the one trying to control the language, interesting.

 

[abandonconflict]

read it yourself dumbass. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

2b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

ohh my. looks like your lying again. how surprising.

Libertarian socialism is none of those things. Libertarian socialism is distinguished from state socialism because means of production are held in common by those who operate them, not by the state. If means of production were held by the state, it would be state socialism, not libertarian socialism. Thank you for defining state socialism again though.


Like I said, alternating between "That's Marxist!" and "Explain it for me again!" is all you do.

 

[Dr Kynes]

So you want to limit what I can use as a source, but I'm the one trying to control the language, interesting.

wikipedia as you well know is not scholarly, is not accurate,, is not authoritative,, and is NOT a source. it is a bathroom wall where anyone may write anything they wish, and usually with LESS intellectual integrity.

your re-defining of terms is a marxist construct, (note the links on world socialism's pages to marx and engles...) and your selective reading of the actual definition of socialism ignored the fact that it can also be a COLLECTIVE system, independent of state control, but the Collective still owns shit while the individual does not.

the reason your bullshit fails is that you provide NO MECHANISM whereby "My Farm" becomes "The Farm", you simply wave your hands in the air vaguely and say "anarchy" which actually means ill have to defend "My Farm" with force, to prevent it from becoming "The Farm (Which Is Administered By The Local Warlord)".

your claims of non-state socialism fail if you cannot propose a method by which My Farm becomes collectivized, or how you will wrest control of it from me and my kin.

youre talking about utopian communism, not socialism, and your just too ignorant to know it.

 

[abandonconflict]

wikipedia as you well know is not scholarly, is not accurate,, is not authoritative,, and is NOT a source. it is a bathroom wall where anyone may write anything they wish, and usually with LESS intellectual integrity.

your re-defining of terms is a marxist construct, (note the links on world socialism's pages to marx and engles...) and your selective reading of the actual definition of socialism ignored the fact that it can also be a COLLECTIVE system, independent of state control, but the Collective still owns shit while the individual does not.

the reason your bullshit fails is that you provide NO MECHANISM whereby "My Farm" becomes "The Farm", you simply wave your hands in the air vaguely and say "anarchy" which actually means ill have to defend "My Farm" with force, to prevent it from becoming "The Farm (Which Is Administered By The Local Warlord)".

your claims of non-state socialism fail if you cannot propose a method by which My Farm becomes collectivized, or how you will wrest control of it from me and my kin.

youre talking about utopian communism, not socialism, and your just too ignorant to know it.

Wikipedia has a higher accuracy rate than Britannica. Anyone can contribute, including professors and academics and geniuses and when they do so, it is tracked and note is made and if the contribution they make is simply vandalism, it is reversed and they are banned. Wikipedia is a prime example of open source utopia.

I have provided a mechanism by which means of production becomes commons, it is called obviation of demand.

I have repeatedly explained it to you, you're just too ignorant to reply in any way other than "That's Marxism!" and "Explain it again!".