I wish to say something on libertarian socialism since I disagree with it and historically the utopian socialists communities have been failures.
I know this sounds like a line pulled straight from the mouth of a Marxist but socialism can’t really exist so long as capitalism does.
There really isn’t empirical evidence to support this. Considering that the Utopian societies existed in the nineteenth century says otherwise.
Capitalism should not be excluded or considered un-libertarian.
I don’t think anyone makes the argument that it’s un-libertarian but that it’s not anarchy. Yes, anarchy means without rulers but historically, as a movement, anarchy has also been a movement against hierarchies and capitalism is hierarchical in nature.
Hierarchies would exist even under socialism and anarchy for human beings are social animals, and no two people will be equal in skill. Someone will take a leadership role, someone is going to tower above the others not in the sense of a dictator but simply in intellect and skill. There is nothing wrong with hierarchy because it is a means of organization in business. Anarchism hasn’t been against hierarchies anyhow since some anarchists movements were involved with terrorism, robbery, and extortion (see: Anna Geifman’s Thou Shalt Kill). The common misconception is that anarchists movements have always been peaceful which is not the case when you look at terrorism in nineteenth and early twentieth century Europe.
Puritanical and dogmatic approaches which would cast capitalists (private owners of business) as pure evil would not get us anywhere. Individual who start businesses should not hand over control to the workers because they are only contracted to employment and they should move up based on merit. Individuals wanting workers to control day to day operations should control and start their own businesses. The success or failure of those business will be determined by the consumer and the individuals operating the respective business operations.
Except a worker who is contracted for employment isn’t really free if the employer dictates such a huge aspect of his life. And socialists aren’t against an individual starting his own business. What they oppose is an individual using the means of production to oppress another individual. If you have the workers owning the means of production and being treated equally there wouldn’t be any need for ‘moving up based on merit’.
Do employers dictator so much of the workers lives? No, that isn’t always the case. Employers should not be able to rule workers as lords but that is hardly the relationship with exists today in the United States. There are cases where employers cross the line and violate the liberties of individuals but such behavior is frowned upon and shamed, such as the way of social and moral evolution of man (see: Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence has Declined for on this progress). You need to cite concrete examples of oppression (sexual harassment, physical abuse, and rape) and these example do exist. The idea of having dress codes and standards of conduct in business, usually within reason, would not be considered oppressive but this is not what people are speaking out against, and yet sometimes people are vague on exactly what they do mean. However, the giving of facebook passwords is outside the realm of employer and worker relationship.
I find both to be legitimate means so long as it is voluntarily (no state or private coercion and I don’t count anything outside those two). There are people consider wage labor exploitation but I don’t give this much credence.
How can a man claim to be free if a boss controls his wage which determines his standard of living?
There are factors outside that relationship which determine the standard of living. Consumer habits for instance because if no one is buying what your producing than it cannot be expected that high wages will be maintained alongside other benefits. Workers productivity will vary because are not equal, and someone’s always going to do a better job and nepotism, no matter how hard people try to eliminate it will always exist. These are people we are talking about here not objects and numbers in mathematical experiments. Historical developments also affect the type of living conditions. History books not covered by economic theorists who write to promote their own ideology will cover whatever region your interested far better because they are less likely to hand select information for their own needs (confirmation bias).
Wages need to be put into context with the standard of living in the region and compare it to the previous standard of living in the past, or else it means very little. Real abuses such as physical assault, rape, and sexual harassment are much greater concerns. The treatment of domestic workers is a prime example of real exploitation because they do not have protection from their employers from private or state law.
It does not seem to me that the libertarian-socialist model to be realistic. People are not equal in talents, skills, and intellect.
There are reasons for this inequality that have little to do with statism. It should be furthered noted that no system of based on Social Darwinism and racial doctrines should be used.
Yeah, except libertarian socialists aren’t saying EQUALIZE ALL THE THINGS.
Main thing they seek is for the workers to own the means of production which’ll lead to a better quality of life for all in all aspects.
Except not every worker will have the skills and education necessary to do. There is going to be a leader. Natural inequality will prevent every business from operating under the system you advocate. People being able to choose their own method of running their business is preferred, so long as the liberty of individuals is not violated, which most libertarians agree with anyhow. Like I said below, tools are only as good as the people who use them.
Realizing that individuals are different: developing their own needs, desires, and wants is important to keep in mind. There are certain universal characteristics to people because we made up of the same evolutionary make-up.
I see no problem with people becoming wealthy because it comes from a desire to improve ones life and so long as its not built upon violence and slavery than there is nothing immoral about it. Wage labor is not slavery and equating as such trivializes historical examples of slavery where people were forms of property rooted in dehumanization.
You want to improve the lives of “slave labor?” Start your own businesses or invest businesses that you fell will better improve the lives of others. I do not rightly care for the white man’s burden non-sense, and people who look down their noses on individuals seek wage labor in the service and retail industries and those working in factories and mines. Are there cruel people using non-skilled workers? Yes. Yet these situations develop from complex historical developments found in de-colonized parts of the world. I do not want people to get the idea that support brutalized treatment of individuals. The examples of exploitation and violence in the world found in the illegal sex trade, and in past examples of labor and death camps in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan are real, tangible examples. They do not originate in capitalism for the real source of the cause of humanity barbarity from one group upon on other stems from deeper social, cultural, and intellectual sources. Christopher Browning and John Dower each have written important histories for the roots of such causes, though they focus on the Second World War.
There should be a free society where people can form their own communities: socialist, feminist, or communist that do not prevent people from pursuing private means of ownership and in the “right” libertarian sense. The term “right-libertarianism” is terribly off considering it has roots in classical liberalism, and not in the ideology of royalists such as the Action Francoise.
I personally think socialist and Marxist theories are wrong. However, I do not rightly care if people hold such views because only a few are of the totalitarian strain (at least in the United States), and are not going to gain power any time soon. The others, well, I am not sure how long they will hold onto their views.
I merely wish people to be free to pursue their own interests without the threat of forces, and capitalism does not entail this, necessarily. All tools are only as good as the people who use them.
I am very much in line with Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek. I am not a mutualist, Marxist, or Socialist.
I do not follow Marxist blogs but I browse them (doing so would give me a headache because I differ from them on far too many things). I am not convinced by their arguments.
I am essentially wrote this too fall asleep.
I will mention one last thing. I do support free markets and do not accept the labor theory of value. I just find it much more productive of my time to study history and read fine literature. I find it more productive to put a much higher concern, in this case non-state actors, on organizations rooted in fascism, totalitarian communism, and clerical fascism (Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah) as being threats alongside the growing power of the State, while recognizing there different forms of Statism.
So, I am a libertarian of the classic liberal tradition dating back to the Age of Enlightenment. I am going to attempt to sleep. I could be wrong.
Free markets. Free people. Free minds.
Yeah, but I wasn’t being serious. If someone granted me the power to remove any blog I wouldn’t do it. If I go to anyone’s blog it’s by choice so there’s no need to remove it by force.
It’s almost 3:00am here. I can’t sleep because this room is an oven.
I am noting my dislike of anon and their tactics. Sorry, about that.
Sorry, for trying to debate on tumblr. lol
Hope that wasn’t too annoying.
lol this wasn’t directed at you. But I’m talking about the other differences between mutualism and ‘libertarianism’. Of course I realize that there are great differences between capitalism and socialism.
I know that. I am just extremely bored.
questingenlightenment said: And people aren’t realizing that the main difference between your former and current beliefs is just the fact that now you’re a socialist rather than a capitalism. But other than that not too much difference between the 2.
You maybe responding to someone else but there is a difference between socialism and capitalism, though I can make any definitive claims about the OP’s beliefs. Zeev Sternhell, George Mosse, Walter Laqueur, and other intellectual historians have at some point or another addressed this difference, though the ones I mentioned primarily dealt with the history of fascism. There is a distinct change once one shifts from the capitalism to socialism.
I think it worthwhile to explore the history of socialism as an intellectual movement. Primary sources are useful and required reading, but secondary sources are needed as well for context, and in the case of intellectual history movements and the words of those involved are more broadly compared and contrasted.
There is a distinction. I don’t think there is anything wrong with this users ideas being challenged and critiqued, because each one of us is subject to it. This is still somewhat of a free society. There never was really a monolithic core to libertarianism in the first places as various groups have used the title, ranging from reactionary conspiracy theorists to anarchists like Murray Rothbard to men like Hayek and Milton Friedman who were minarchists at best.
Now I merely using this post to expand on other ideas.
I’ve read Alfred Rosenberg, Georges Valois, Benito Mussolini, Pierre Drieu la Rochelle, Maurice Barres, and other fascist intellectuals for my own research. I have a better understanding of fascism as a result, and have much more grounded means to oppose fascism, rather than being an “anti-fascist” superficially. This isn’t the same as reading Kevin Carson. However, it is not wrong for him to read Carson but not everyone is going to agree with those ideas.
Free market of ideas and shit.
Quoting someone doesn’t necessarily mean you agree with their ideology. Take for instance CK on Tumblr, though most of the time libertarians disagree with her there are RARE moments in which she says something agreeable.
I understand this but the context of what Henry Ford is saying is important. His views on banking and the federal monetary system are rooted in antisemitism not a rational view point. Thus, quoting him makes little sense because he reaches his conclusions based on racial ideology, in this case anti-Jewish propaganda. It was not the same line of reasoning as Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard came to when they discussed this very issue. That was my point. Some arguments against Federal Banks, the United States foreign policy, and democratic rule are rooted in reactionary and sometimes authoritarian beliefs, but they appear agreeable in order to appeal to a broader audience. They may use legitimate grievances and grains of truth but the broader scope of their beliefs are based on lies and propaganda in the way of their own agenda. However, in the case of Henry Ford his ideas were derived from fear and irrational hatred of Jews, rather than a belief in fascism.
I am not saying anyone quoting Ford is antisemitic but his conclusions are based on antisemitic reasoning. He is not arguing against the system for the same reason an anarchist and libertarian are. His motives are based on racism.
Far from it. One of the brightest I’ve seen on here and least antagonistic.
Bleh. I am limited in many ways. My only skill is resource collecting.
Why do you feel stupid?
It is just feeling. I know my limits and I was quite aware of this feeling that I cannot go much further. I had this feeling for sometime. In any case, the most I can do is offer a differing opinion based on my limited ability.
All this reading and tracking tags has left me empty.
And what about the constant singing?
It depends. The songs are typically good and fit the story then it works, and, of course, like all genres there are terrible Bollywood movies. For me, it’s all about finding the movies that I can connect with and be entertained.
How do you endure them? They’re so long haha
They’re short. The longest film I watched was nearly four hours long. It was directed by Sergio Leone: One Upon a Time in America.
I am used it. I like long songs, too.
They all seem short to me. The films which are terrible and are total shit seem to last longer than the stuff I like. Monster A-Go-Go and Baby Geniuses falls into that category of shit.