I just realized this says : Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation … I had no idea this is what I was on. I just read about the fediverse and decided to join because I no bullshit got banned from Reddit for asking: Why don’t we castrate billionaires to prevent generational wealth? and they banned me because they thought I was calling for violence. My appeal got denied. So this is funny to me. I’m a social capitalist with libertarian socialist views. I don’t agree with society but I think the only way to change society or have any kind of effect on it is from dismantling it from within. I’m also straight up for the halting of production to destroy society and watch it collapse.
At the same time though I also know we would need a currency no matter what or trading for food or shelter; That’s why it’s like we can even go as far back as thinking how would a cave person think: they need skin of animal, you have skin of animal I give you food oog boog we trade.
I don’t disagree but if you’re raised in the US and live in it, it’s what you got. The collapse of East Germany (autocorrect wtf, we listen to the east Germany anthem when we feel like we need hope don’t tell me west) and the German mark was good enough to show when one satellite fails in a major way it shows the flaws of the whole. Socialism is using other people’s money to solve problems that never will be solved and every country that has attempted it in a heavy way has failed or ruined their economy.
Capitalism is at the very core, controlled greed that everyone can bite into and never have to give any of it away because you earned that. We even tell people who are disabled they earn that money to make them not feel bad and they don’t earn it, they receive it. Even then, even if you receive money, you’re still able if you did it right to hoard money.
But I guess if food wasn’t a commodity then I guess if I owned a farm and had cattle for meat that means it’s a fuck all and you can take my cattle because food isn’t a commody?
If there was no value to the things we have we wouldn’t have a controlled trade system to be able to have some kind of a civilized way of living without that controlled trade system Farmer Frank killing you with a pitchfork for stealing his cattle, is more a possibility than going to the grocery store and buying meat.
God damn, dude, you are such a fucking waste of time. Go hail your almighty dollar and fuck off, you subservient cunt.
Go write your thesis on how it’s easier to gobble boot than to ever even try in the slightest to think outside of the system you were indoctrinated into somewhere else, then feel free to fucking choke on it. You’re a fucking propagandist.
a social capitalist with libertarian socialist views.
Are Libertarian Socialists the Same as Anarchists?
An anarchist by definition stands against all authority without exception, while a socialist by definition is simply someone who feels the means of production should be collectively owned. So, socialism is narrowly focused on economic issues, while anarchy is explicitly concerned with any and all social issues.
When a socialist also identifies as a libertarian, they’re indicating that they’re critical of the traditional authoritarian socialist states that have been so prominent in the world (the USSR, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe, etc.)
But while libertarian socialists might reject one-party states, that doesn’t mean they reject states entirely. A lot of them will support democratic states or other democratic forms of government. Anarchists, on the other hand, reject all forms of government.
Generally someone who chooses to identify as a libertarian socialist rather than an anarchist is making a deliberate choice to use non-committal language that implies they’re willing to accept certain forms of authority. If they opposed all authority as anarchists do, they’d likely call themselves an anarchist.
There are various forms of libertarian socialism that promote a supposedly “libertarian” state, while there are other libertarian socialists who reject the state form, but embrace other forms of authority.
Communists are a famous example of libertarian socialists who embrace various forms of authority including majoritarianism but stop short of supporting a full-blown state. But the form of government they do support greatly resembles states on a smaller, more localized scale. Communists wholly advocate for government, majoritarianism, hierarchy and are probably best described as direct-democrats or socialist monarchists. Anyone claiming communists are anarchists doesn’t understand communism or anarchy.
While a few anarchists might also choose to identify as libertarian socialists in polite company, the majority of libertarian socialists aren’t anarchists, so anarchists would be better off avoiding the “libertarian socialist” moniker since all it really says about a person’s politics is they like socialist economics but have an aversion to vanguard parties. Anarchy is a whole lot more than economics.
To identify as an anarchist is to take a strong stance against all authority, while libertarian socialism, democratic socialism and other such milquetoast labels take no such stance, leaving the door open to all kinds of authority, with the only real concern being democracy in the workplace.
Please refer to my previous comment.
I just realized this says : Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation … I had no idea this is what I was on. I just read about the fediverse and decided to join because I no bullshit got banned from Reddit for asking: Why don’t we castrate billionaires to prevent generational wealth? and they banned me because they thought I was calling for violence. My appeal got denied. So this is funny to me. I’m a social capitalist with libertarian socialist views. I don’t agree with society but I think the only way to change society or have any kind of effect on it is from dismantling it from within. I’m also straight up for the halting of production to destroy society and watch it collapse.
At the same time though I also know we would need a currency no matter what or trading for food or shelter; That’s why it’s like we can even go as far back as thinking how would a cave person think: they need skin of animal, you have skin of animal I give you food oog boog we trade.
It’s always something.
Capitalism is fucking removeded.
I don’t disagree but if you’re raised in the US and live in it, it’s what you got. The collapse of East Germany (autocorrect wtf, we listen to the east Germany anthem when we feel like we need hope don’t tell me west) and the German mark was good enough to show when one satellite fails in a major way it shows the flaws of the whole. Socialism is using other people’s money to solve problems that never will be solved and every country that has attempted it in a heavy way has failed or ruined their economy.
Capitalism is at the very core, controlled greed that everyone can bite into and never have to give any of it away because you earned that. We even tell people who are disabled they earn that money to make them not feel bad and they don’t earn it, they receive it. Even then, even if you receive money, you’re still able if you did it right to hoard money.
But I guess if food wasn’t a commodity then I guess if I owned a farm and had cattle for meat that means it’s a fuck all and you can take my cattle because food isn’t a commody?
If there was no value to the things we have we wouldn’t have a controlled trade system to be able to have some kind of a civilized way of living without that controlled trade system Farmer Frank killing you with a pitchfork for stealing his cattle, is more a possibility than going to the grocery store and buying meat.
God damn, dude, you are such a fucking waste of time. Go hail your almighty dollar and fuck off, you subservient cunt.
Go write your thesis on how it’s easier to gobble boot than to ever even try in the slightest to think outside of the system you were indoctrinated into somewhere else, then feel free to fucking choke on it. You’re a fucking propagandist.
Excuse me what
Are Libertarian Socialists the Same as Anarchists?
An anarchist by definition stands against all authority without exception, while a socialist by definition is simply someone who feels the means of production should be collectively owned. So, socialism is narrowly focused on economic issues, while anarchy is explicitly concerned with any and all social issues.
When a socialist also identifies as a libertarian, they’re indicating that they’re critical of the traditional authoritarian socialist states that have been so prominent in the world (the USSR, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe, etc.)
But while libertarian socialists might reject one-party states, that doesn’t mean they reject states entirely. A lot of them will support democratic states or other democratic forms of government. Anarchists, on the other hand, reject all forms of government.
Generally someone who chooses to identify as a libertarian socialist rather than an anarchist is making a deliberate choice to use non-committal language that implies they’re willing to accept certain forms of authority. If they opposed all authority as anarchists do, they’d likely call themselves an anarchist.
There are various forms of libertarian socialism that promote a supposedly “libertarian” state, while there are other libertarian socialists who reject the state form, but embrace other forms of authority.
Communists are a famous example of libertarian socialists who embrace various forms of authority including majoritarianism but stop short of supporting a full-blown state. But the form of government they do support greatly resembles states on a smaller, more localized scale. Communists wholly advocate for government, majoritarianism, hierarchy and are probably best described as direct-democrats or socialist monarchists. Anyone claiming communists are anarchists doesn’t understand communism or anarchy.
While a few anarchists might also choose to identify as libertarian socialists in polite company, the majority of libertarian socialists aren’t anarchists, so anarchists would be better off avoiding the “libertarian socialist” moniker since all it really says about a person’s politics is they like socialist economics but have an aversion to vanguard parties. Anarchy is a whole lot more than economics.
To identify as an anarchist is to take a strong stance against all authority, while libertarian socialism, democratic socialism and other such milquetoast labels take no such stance, leaving the door open to all kinds of authority, with the only real concern being democracy in the workplace.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ziq-are-libertarian-socialists-the-same-as-anarchists
I’n familiar with Libertarian Socialism, what I’m perplexed at is a different matter.
…why are you a Libertarian Socialist if you think “Socialism is using other people’s money to solve problems that never will be solved“?
Because that same hopelessness adheres to US capitalism. I care more about destroying the system from within.