WTF is a "free market socialist"?

[Kludge]

Sounds like some type-'er retard lib'rul tryin'-ter use a ghetto-hick euphanism to make it appear he ain't no dirt-eatin sack of scum.

[Truth Warrior]

About a penny a ton.

[literatim]

Double think.

Would you give up some of your freedoms to retain your liberty?

[Danke]

I think we'll find out come this January.

[OddballAZ]

It's just a typical liberal who twists the English language into what they want it to mean rather than what it really means.

[anaconda]

Means you tax for social programs but don't intervene in the markets otherwise. So you would have little or no business regulation, no tax money to assist the private sector, and no Federal Reserve Bank.

[pdavis]

A free market socialist (aka Mutualist) is someone who believes that in a pure free market that people would organize from the bottom-up through mutual aid societies, mutual banking (credit unions), community ran schools, worker cooperatives, and small family business rather than organizing in large hierarchical, top-down entities.

[hypnagogue]

an idiot.

[Kludge]

A free market socialist (aka Mutualist) is someone who believes that in a pure free market that people would organize from the bottom-up through mutual aid societies, mutual banking (credit unions), community ran schools, worker cooperatives, and small family business rather than organizing in large hierarchical, top-down entities.

Sounds more like a conservative or anarcho-communist.

[yongrel]

Someone who donates to charity willfully?

Bit Orwellian, really.

[Superdog]

A free market socialist (aka Mutualist) is someone who believes that in a pure free market that people would organize from the bottom-up through mutual aid societies, mutual banking (credit unions), community ran schools, worker cooperatives, and small family business rather than organizing in large hierarchical, top-down entities. This is exactly correct. A strain of libertarian socialism/left-anarchy. Formulated originally by Proudhon, aka the "property is theft" guy, who cited Adam Smith as one of his main sources, btw.

[pdavis]

Sounds more like a conservative or anarcho-communist.

What's conservative or communist about it?


Someone who donates to charity willfully?

Bit Orwellian, really.

In its contemporary context, yes it is Orwellian. However, in its historical context it is not.

[Conza88]

Someone waging an esoteric agenda.

[Superdog]

In its contemporary context, yes it is Orwellian. However, in its historical context it is not. The term Mutualism doesn't get bandied about much, but the principles are still thriving in certain corners of the world right now. It's by no means a dead philosophy.

[Paulitician]

Non-capitalist anarchist/libertarian socialist of the individualist or mutualist persuasion. pdavis summed it up nicely.

My philosophy/prefrences lie somewhere between that and voluntarist capitalism... but I no longer concern myself with the labels of "capitalist" or "socialist" ergo don't consider myself either.

[Kludge]

What's conservative or communist about it?

Looking at it again, it isn't conservatism at all. However, for free markets, anarchy is almost necessary as coercive taxation couldn't exist. As well, for anything to be "mutual", there needs to be contracts. So, no one could become a citizen unless they agree to be, which again is anarchy (as no "government" could "claim" any person seeking to leave or bring to justice anyone who isn't a citizen). The Communist adjective comes from the apparent desire for "mutually-funded" programs at the local level (education was explicitly listed, I'm making an assumption on other safety nets).

[Kludge]

Lmao.... /mod hat off?

[LibertyEagle]

Lmao.... /mod hat off?

Uh... yes. :o:D

Actually Josh said we didn't need to do that.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Don't Fool yourselves...

It's "Chromium Communism"... Polished to the reflective Gloss, very nicely!

[Pete]

A free market socialist (aka Mutualist) is someone who believes that in a pure free market that people would organize from the bottom-up through mutual aid societies, mutual banking (credit unions), community ran schools, worker cooperatives, and small family business rather than organizing in large hierarchical, top-down entities.

I have no beef with this kind of voluntary socialism. It's desirable, even.

When the term is applied to someone like Obama, however, it means Bush with more social programs.

[Superdog]

Don't Fool yourselves...

It's "Chromium Communism"... Polished to the reflective Gloss, very nicely! Not so much, at all.

Here's Proudhon criticizing communism: (stolen from wikipedia)
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, some of whose philosophy has influenced social anarchists (social Christian anarchist Leo Tolstoy was heavily influenced by Proudhon), was critical of communism, "whether of the Utopian or the Marxist variety, [believing] that it destroyed freedom by taking away from the individual control over his means of production." At the time he wrote most of his works, the word "communism" was typically used to refer to the views of the Utopian socialists, whom Proudhon accused of attempting to impose equality by sovereign decrees. In opposition to the communist maxim "to each according to need", Proudhon said "To each according to his works, first; and if, on occasion, I am impelled to aid you, I will do it with a good grace; but I will not be constrained".

[acptulsa]

Where the hell did you hear this goofy term? Sounds to me like someone's euphamism for 'fascist'.

"I hate all free enterprise, but I love my big fat corporate contributors. So, I'll be a free-market socialist and give taxpayer money to big banks so they can buy all the small banks." In other words, a free-market socialist is a Hank Paulson.

[Superdog]

Where the hell did you hear this goofy term? Sounds to me like someone's euphamism for 'fascist'.

"I hate all free enterprise, but I love my big fat corporate contributors. So, I'll be a free-market socialist and give taxpayer money to big banks so they can buy all the small banks." In other words, a free-market socialist is a Hank Paulson.Did you even read the thread?

Historically, fascists and socialists hate each other so that wouldn't even make sense.

[acptulsa]

Historically, fascists and socialists hate each other so that wouldn't even make sense.

Of course they hate each other. They're way, way too much alike. That always causes friction.

P.S. Surely you're educated enough to know that fascists have hidden behind the term 'socialist' before.

[bojo68]

I guess I'd call it a non sequitor, and wonder why anybody would listen to whoever was spreading such manure. This HAS to be the technical definition of "Manure Spreader".

[orafi]

Someone who donates to charity willfully?

Bit Orwellian, really.

err, philanthropists

[Superdog]

Of course they hate each other. They're way, way too much alike. That always causes friction.

P.S. Surely you're educated enough to know that fascists have hidden behind the term 'socialist' before. Their ideologies merge on certain points, as most all non libertarain philosophies do. But the fascists pro-big business, anti-union, and anti-communist stance is a pretty big divergence.

P.S. The term socialist, like capitalist, is too broad to speak of without qaulifications. Socialists can be harcore Statists or total anarchists, similiar to capitalists.

[acptulsa]

Their ideologies merge on certain points, as most all non libertarain philosophies do. But the fascists pro-big business, anti-union, and anti-communist stance is a pretty big divergence.

Many socialists are anti-union. After all, if mama government is taking care of you you don't need a union. Technically, being a citizen puts you in The Big Union and you don't even need to pay dues--except, of course, for your hefty tax bill.


P.S. The term socialist, like capitalist, is too broad to speak of without qaulifications. Socialists can be harcore Statists or total anarchists, similiar to capitalists.

Socialistic anarchists are either fascists or oxymorons. Think about it. Socialism without some form of central control is--what? It doesn't exist. So, if there's central control yet no government... Hello?

[dannno]

Means you tax for social programs but don't intervene in the markets otherwise. So you would have little or no business regulation, no tax money to assist the private sector, and no Federal Reserve Bank.

This.

[Superdog]

Many socialists are anti-union. After all, if mama government is taking care of you you don't need a union. Technically, being a citizen puts you in The Big Union and you don't even need to pay dues--except, of course, for your hefty tax bill. That would be true of state socialists. Anarcho-syndicalists, on the other side, propose the union/syndicate as the essential core of free society.





Socialistic anarchists are either fascists or oxymorons. Think about it. Socialism without some form of central control is--what? It doesn't exist. So, if there's central control yet no government... Hello?
Just because you've never heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[acptulsa]

Just because you've never heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

So, tell me where else the central control could reside. Or do you propose voluntary redistribution of wealth?

I realize that just because you can't or won't articulate something is also no proof it doesn't exist, but hey. Let's have it anyway. Why not?

P.S. I suppose you could also call a 'free market socialist' Amish. Considering how devout they are, I wonder if that could be considered voluntary? In any case, it's as close to voluntary as socialism will ever get in the real world...

And if it works for them, fine, but I have no desire to participate in a theocratic centrally controlled system.

[acptulsa]

Doubt not that there is a reason the powers that be place such faith in the shams they call elections and want a bigger turnout. This is the only way they can classify their robbery of us as voluntary. It gives them a legitimacy that their actions do not earn.

[Superdog]

So, tell me where else the central control could reside. Or do you propose voluntary redistribution of wealth? There is no central control.


I realize that just because you can't or won't articulate something is also no proof it doesn't exist, but hey. Let's have it anyway. Why not?
Someone up thread gave a very articulate and succint summary:

A free market socialist (aka Mutualist) is someone who believes that in a pure free market that people would organize from the bottom-up through mutual aid societies, mutual banking (credit unions), community ran schools, worker cooperatives, and small family business rather than organizing in large hierarchical, top-down entities.


P.S. I suppose you could also call a 'free market socialist' Amish. Considering how devout they are, I wonder if that could be considered voluntary? In any case, it's as close to voluntary as socialism will ever get in the real world.... The best example off the top of my head is the worker co-ops in Argentina. After their economy collapsed, workers seized control of their workplaces and ran on them on democratic basis, dividing the profits in a fashion decided amongst themselves. They have doctor and nurse owned hospitals, journalist owned newspapers and worker owned factories. They are building networks of these; the printing shop will print the hospital's documents in exchange for free healthcare. Un-employed people build food kitchens and schools for their children, without any governemnt control or funding. That's one example of something that's happening in the real world right now.


And if it works for them, fine, but I have no desire to participate in a theocratic centrally controlled system. Neither would I.

[pdavis]

Many socialists are anti-union. After all, if mama government is taking care of you you don't need a union. Technically, being a citizen puts you in The Big Union and you don't even need to pay dues--except, of course, for your hefty tax bill.



Socialistic anarchists are either fascists or oxymorons. Think about it. Socialism without some form of central control is--what? It doesn't exist. So, if there's central control yet no government... Hello?


So, tell me where else the central control could reside. Or do you propose voluntary redistribution of wealth?

I realize that just because you can't or won't articulate something is also no proof it doesn't exist, but hey. Let's have it anyway. Why not?

P.S. I suppose you could also call a 'free market socialist' Amish. Considering how devout they are, I wonder if that could be considered voluntary? In any case, it's as close to voluntary as socialism will ever get in the real world...

And if it works for them, fine, but I have no desire to participate in a theocratic centrally controlled system.


You're conflating state socialism (the state owning all means of production) with socialism (the workers owning the means of production, which would include individuals owning the means of production). Read Benjamin Tucker's (a free market socialist) essay State Socialism and Anarchism (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker2.html). Free market socialists (mutualists) believe that absent of state intervention people would voluntarily organize from the bottom-up such as through cooperatives and credit unions rather than through large, top-down hierarchical entities such as we see today with multinational corporations.

[acptulsa]

The thing is, either you wind up with someone in charge or you go nowhere fast. So, you entrust the responsibility to someone or you run it democratically--and get two wolves and a sheep discussing dinner plans.

That said, and in spite of United Airlines' experience, I have no trouble at all with employee-run companies. But the control of a company doesn not socialism make...

[pdavis]

The best example off the top of my head is the worker co-ops in Argentina. After their economy collapsed, workers seized control of their workplaces and ran on them on democratic basis, dividing the profits in a fashion decided amongst themselves. They have doctor and nurse owned hospitals, journalist owned newspapers and worker owned factories. They are building networks of these; the printing shop will print the hospital's documents in exchange for free healthcare. Un-employed people build food kitchens and schools for their children, without any governemnt control or funding. That's one example of something that's happening in the real world right now.
Neither would I.

Here's a similar example of a company in Brazil:

Part One (video starts @ 1:25)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY4xyTpSgRY

Part Two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE3n6wPgoKk&watch_response

Edit: Not a cooperative, but business is ran democratically.

[Paulitician]

Socialism without some form of central control is--what?
Well, there are many decentralists in the socialist camp. Socialism must not mean out-right central/government control--however, that's probably been what most people associate it with. Free market, libertarian socialism of which mutualists and some individualist anarchists advocate is completely non-statist. It does not make sense to think of it within the statist paradigm (i.e. it is not a statist philosophy).

Also, socialism does not have to mean "redistribution of wealth," although I'm sure even libertarian socialists would advocate that due to what they believe as the injustices of the current system. Under their system they don't think such economic inequality will result--especially not anywhere to the extent that it does today--making redistribution of wealth unnecessary.

If people think that capitalism--as known anywhere in the world during any period of time--is voluntary than I think you need to check your facts. There have rarely been things what I'd call completely voluntary and free markets--and we could only speculate on the type of outcomes that would emerge. I personally don't think they'd be completely mutualistic/socialistic, but I don't think the outcomes would be completely capitalistic either.


To go on a little tangent, I was thinking about wealth redistribution yesterday. According to Forbes, the top 400 richest people in the United States collectively have 1.54 trillion dollars. Let just say there are a 100 million taxpayers (to keep things simple). If you divide that 1.54 trillion among them, each would get 15,000 bucks. That's more than some poor folks earn in a year. Of course, I'm not saying if we did that, that all of a sudden the 15k would have the same purchasing power it did before the redistribution--there are many economic issues with this hypothetical situation--but it would definitely help a lot of people. Did all of those rich people earn their money (and note, in last year's Forbes 400, you needed 1.3 billion at least to get on the list)? I'm sure they earned some it, but there are also a lot of things like protectionist regulation (and I'm not necessarily talking about trade among nations--anything that illegitimately favors one group over another because of government favor is "protectionist") in the current system that could only make their type of wealth possible.

[Paulitician]

But the control of a company doesn not socialism make...
But "collective/worker ownership of the means of production" is socialism. The only reason why government control/ownership is said to be socialism is because supposedly we're all collectively part of the government, and therefore anything the government controls, we control as well. But that's just a farce in my opinion. All governemnts have been oligarchies IMO, with maybe the exception of popular democracies--but those have hardly existed and they can be just as bad.

[Superdog]

The thing is, either you wind up with someone in charge or you go nowhere fast. So, you entrust the responsibility to someone or you run it democratically--and get two wolves and a sheep discussing dinner plans. They usually (sometimes not) have a manager to run things, but s/he is democratically elected. Sometimes they go out and recruit someone. It's up to them. A lot of these places run better under worker control than they did before. There is less labor cost as far as paying managemtn salaries, and usually less risk taking in exchange for moderate growth. But again, it's run however the people running it want it to run.


That said, and in spite of United Airlines' experience, I have no trouble at all with employee-run companies. But the control of a company doesn not socialism make... That's, like, the definition of socialism. At least the version we're trying to talk about in this thread.

[Superdog]

Here's a similar example of a company in Brazil:

Part One (video starts @ 1:25)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY4xyTpSgRY

Part Two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE3n6wPgoKk&watch_response I'll have to watch these later. Thanks.

[The_Orlonater]

A Keynesian. :D

[acptulsa]

But "collective/worker ownership of the means of production" is socialism. The only reason why government control/ownership is said to be socialism is because supposedly we're all collectively part of the government, and therefore anything the government controls, we control as well. But that's just a farce in my opinion. All governemnts have been oligarchies IMO, with maybe the exception of popular democracies--but those have hardly existed and they can be just as bad.

Well, I have only heard of socialism in terms of a system of government. I never ever heard anyone call United Airlines socialist, and I would have argued if I had. After all, the fact that their workers were in charge and sharing the profits (when they had any) did not mean that they didn't have to compete in a (not so free) market. Thus, something resembling captialism.

Now, if you want to call employee-owned corporations socialism, then I'll say I support socialism in an extremely limited way. As long as the worker-controlled corporation gets to play in a free market, I'm all for it.

Just don't expect me to call it socialism until the government gets some grubby fingers into the pie. Sorry. Guess I'm just too old school.

[Conza88]

A Keynesian. :D

Ha! :D

[Superdog]

Well, I have only heard of socialism in terms of a system of government. I never ever heard anyone call United Airlines socialist, and I would have argued if I had. After all, the fact that their workers were in charge and sharing the profits (when they had any) did not mean that they didn't have to compete in a (not so free) market. Thus, something resembling captialism.

Now, if you want to call employee-owned corporations socialism, then I'll say I support socialism in an extremely limited way. As long as the worker-controlled corporation gets to play in a free market, I'm all for it.

Just don't expect me to call it socialism until the government gets some grubby fingers into the pie. Sorry. Guess I'm just too old school.
I see I see. I actually encounter something similar on the Anarchist forums I go to.

People will make references to the evils of capitalism, how capitalism rapes countries, bankrupts economies and grinds people into prison and poverty. The term they're really searching for is our current system: statist capitalism, or perhaps Corporate Mercantilism. Any attempt to explain the distinction usually falls on deaf ears.

[escapinggreatly]

A Keynesian. :D

Ha, I think we have a winner for this thread.
__________________

http://www.meltingpotproject.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/10/22/libertariansig.jpg
The Melting Pot Project: Proportional Representation. New Parties. Intern Jokes. (http://www.meltingpotproject.com/)

[acptulsa]

I see I see. I actually encounter something similar on the Anarchist forums I go to.

People will make references to the evils of capitalism, how capitalism rapes countries, bankrupts economies and grinds people into prison and poverty. The term they're really searching for is our current system: statist capitalism, or perhaps Corporate Mercantilism. Any attempt to explain the distinction usually falls on deaf ears.

We're fast reaching the point where fascism will do to describe it. About the time they give tax money to the CEOs for champaigne, I don't know what else to call it. But I understand. When someone wants to sell a point in defiance of all conventional wisdom and/or reason, the first step is to start changing the meaning of terms. If, for example, you want to sell something repugnant then misidentify something that isn't repugnant with that name. For example, you could sell fruitcake as cookie bars. You could sell fascism as capitalism. Or, just to throw another example off the top of my head, you could sell socialism as employee ownership of companies, then sneak the totalitarian aspects in later. It's all very effective--for use against idiots.

[Superdog]

We're fast reaching the point where fascism will do to describe it. About the time they give tax money to the CEOs for champaigne, I don't know what else to call it. Certainly, our current economy seems to be galloping towards fascism at a steady clip.


But I understand. When someone wants to sell a point in defiance of all conventional wisdom and/or reason, the first step is to start changing the meaning of terms. If, for example, you want to sell something repugnant then misidentify something that isn't repugnant with that name. For example, you could sell fruitcake as cookie bars. You could sell fascism as capitalism. Or, just to throw another example off the top of my head, you could sell socialism as employee ownership of companies, then sneak the totalitarian aspects in later. It's all very effective--for use against idiots. I just feel a complusion to point out that that is a philosophy dating back to at least the 1800's.

[acptulsa]

I just feel a complusion to point out that that is a philosophy dating back to at least the 1800's.

It dates back one hell of a lot farther than that. What is a proprietorship without hirees but an employee-owned business? Come on now. The difference with Marx was that he actually did propose this as a system of government, if for no other reason than what else could realistically take all that property away and redistribute that wealth? And that's the difference between proprietorship and socialism.

[Aratus]

superdog, you is about to buy the CHINESE DEMOCRACY cd or download or something like that? like how does what you've said jell & jive with classic 1800s liberalism and mercantilism!?!! i agree, italian fascism sometimes can be molasses in january yet nazism is often quicker. this juan peron thingie and the politics of the 1970s...

[Aratus]

Certainly, our current economy seems to be galloping towards fascism at a steady clip.



again, are we into trusts or are we TR era?

[acptulsa]

superdog, you is about to buy the CHINESE DEMOCRACY cd or download or something like that? like how does what you've said jell & jive with classic 1800s liberalism and mercantilism!?!! i agree, italian fascism sometimes can be molasses in january yet nazism is often quicker. this juan peron thingie and the politics of the 1970s...

Way to pwn a Keynesian! You go, girl!

[werdd]

im a free market socialist randian objectivist keysnian economicist alan greenspanian clintonion barry goldwatery robert taftist andrewjacskson adolf hitlerist.

[acptulsa]

im a free market socialist randian objectivist keysnian economicist alan greenspanian clintonion barry goldwatery robert taftist andrewjacskson adolf hitlerist.

That would, even more than being a socialistic anarchist, be indicative of Multiple Personality Disorder. Seek professional help.

[Superdog]

Willful ignorance for the win! Woo-hoo!

[acptulsa]

Willful ignorance for the win! Woo-hoo!

It is what got this nation where it is today. That and the people who take full advantage of it...

[Superdog]

Way to pwn a Keynesian! You go, girl! Keynesian? Where? I'll let you know if I see him.


It is what got this nation where it is today. And you and your Ron Paul comrades seem to be gleefully swimming in it. (with a few exceptions of some very nice people)

[acptulsa]

And you and your Ron Paul comrades seem to be gleefully swimming in it. (with a few exceptions of some very nice people)

Niceness does not make socialism into something it isn't. Now, besides our disagreement about a certain definition, wherein doth my ignorance lie, O judge and jury? I am all agog to be educated by Your Eminence.

Look, changing the meanings of words is the first tool in the propagandists' tool chest when they're trying to shove poison down your throat. And their first defense is to attack the debater, not his argument. So, are you a propagandist or do you have some valid point to make?

[Superdog]

Niceness does not make socialism into something it isn't. Now, besides our disagreement about a certain definition, wherein doth my ignorance lie, O judge and jury? I am all agog to be educated by Your Eminence.

Look, changing the meanings of words is the first tool in the propagandists' tool chest when they're trying to shove poison down your throat. And their first defense is to attack the debater, not his argument. So, are you a propagandist or do you have some valid point to make? I am trying to convince you that there is a long philosophical tradition of libertarian socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism), free market socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)) and social anarchy, including anarcho-communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism), anarcho-syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism) and social ecology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ecology), that existed since before you were born. The fact that a concentrated effort has been made through government propaganda and schools to equate the word "socialism" with "evil baby eater who hates freedom" doesn't change the fact this is a legitimate historical tradition.
The definition of the word socialism that is most commonly used in America (not in other countries) is the State owning the means of production. That's Marx's definition. I'm not a Marxist. I don't use Marx's definition. All of the schools I just mentioned have been opposed to Marxism since the first word of it was written. No one is changing the definition of anything, unless you're accusing me of traveling back in time, becoming several people and writing a small library of political literature. You seem to be the one buying the standard propaganda that refuses to accept a range of political options beyond a narrow conception based only around property rights.
I'm not trying to convert you, I'm asking you to accept that political traditions beyond your own, and various evils to rail against do, in fact, exist. All of the traditions I mentioned should be political allies to anyone opposed to un-checked state power.

[werdd]

I am trying to convince you that there is a long philosophical tradition of libertarian socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism), free market socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)) and social anarchy, including anarcho-communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism), anarcho-syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism) and social ecology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ecology), that existed since before you were born. The fact that a concentrated effort has been made through government propaganda and schools to equate the word "socialism" with "evil baby eater who hates freedom" doesn't change the fact this is a legitimate historical tradition.
The definition of the word socialism that is most commonly used in America (not in other countries) is the State owning the means of production. That's Marx's definition. I'm not a Marxist. I don't use Marx's definition. All of the schools I just mentioned have been opposed to Marxism since the first word of it was written. No one is changing the definition of anything, unless you're accusing me of traveling back in time, becoming several people and writing a small library of political literature. You seem to be the one buying the standard propaganda that refuses to accept a range of political options beyond a narrow conception based only around property rights.
I'm not trying to convert you, I'm asking you to accept that political traditions beyond your own, and various evils to rail against do, in fact, exist. All of the traditions I mentioned should be political allies to anyone opposed to un-checked state power.


Im glad you can readily redefine a word.


Socialism -

A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Marx's definition, imo he who knew best

3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.


Socialism is the collective belief that goverment can better provide for the individual than the individual can possibly provide for itself.

It's the idea that instead of you going straight to the source, a better option would to let your goverment be the middle man in choosing all of the necessities of your life. School, food, television, the limited number of websites you can view based on your plan, etc.

Wouldn't it be great if everyone was a goverment worker on salary with forced lunch brunch and pre dinner breaks and only allowed to work 40 hours a week and we all make the same wage?

Socialism kills competition, eradicates self fulfillment, and eliminates an incentive to better yourself for your own good.

[acptulsa]

I am trying to convince you that there is a long philosophical tradition of libertarian socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism), free market socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)) and social anarchy, including anarcho-communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism), anarcho-syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism) and social ecology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ecology), that existed since before you were born.

Mutualism is mutualism. The only one with 'socialism' in its proper name is so-called 'libertarian socialism' and all it wants to do is disguise the certainly present authority not as 'government' but as a 'trade union'-like authority. There is no difference I can see there but degree, and since such levels of control make it quite easy for this allegedly non-bureaucratic entity to draw more power unto itself, I doubt the difference of degree would last long if it were tried in the real world.

So, I fear that as a practical matter libertarian socialism is an oxymoron and could never exist as other than a pipe dream, at least for long. And I still dispute that the other things you mentioned are socialism at all.

Most people like to hold words to the best accepted definitions. As I say, the only person who would want to deemphasize the word 'poison' and substitute 'cherry-flavored cathartic' is the propagandist for a murderer.

[Superdog]

Mutualism is mutualism. The only one with 'socialism' in its proper name is so-called 'libertarian socialism' and all it wants to do is disguise the certainly present authority not as 'government' but as a 'trade union'-like authority. There is no difference I can see there but degree, and since such levels of control make it quite easy for this allegedly non-bureaucratic entity to draw more power unto itself, I doubt the difference of degree would last long if it were tried in the real world.

So, I fear that as a practical matter libertarian socialism is an oxymoron and could never exist as other than a pipe dream, at least for long. And I still dispute that the other things you mentioned are socialism at all.

Most people like to hold words to the best accepted definitions. As I say, the only person who would want to deemphasize the word 'poison' and substitute 'cherry-flavored cathartic' is the propagandist for a murderer.


Im glad you can readily redefine a word.


Socialism -

A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Marx's definition, imo he who knew best

3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.


Socialism is the collective belief that goverment can better provide for the individual than the individual can possibly provide for itself.

It's the idea that instead of you going straight to the source, a better option would to let your goverment be the middle man in choosing all of the necessities of your life. School, food, television, the limited number of websites you can view based on your plan, etc.

Wouldn't it be great if everyone was a goverment worker on salary with forced lunch brunch and pre dinner breaks and only allowed to work 40 hours a week and we all make the same wage?

Socialism kills competition, eradicates self fulfillment, and eliminates an incentive to better yourself for your own good.

I know I'm a newb, but I had two people from this forum, both with thousands of posts apiece, back me up on this. I give up. I'm willing to consider right-libertarians and anarcho-capitalists political allies, but this is leaving a bad taste in my mouth.

Have fun being intentionally ignorant.

http://www.allcityconsulting.com/xSites/Mortgage/AllCityConsultingInc/Content/UploadedFiles/Ostrich.gif

[acptulsa]

I know I'm a newb, but I had two people from this forum, both with thousands of posts apiece, back me up on this. I give up. I'm willing to consider right-libertarians and anarcho-capitalists political allies, but this is leaving a bad taste in my mouth.

Have fun being intentionally ignorant.

http://www.allcityconsulting.com/xSites/Mortgage/AllCityConsultingInc/Content/UploadedFiles/Ostrich.gif

Don't know if you're a Wonktard or just someone on some kind of internet scavenger hunt charged with getting someone on RPF to say they like socialism, and I don't care. Come back when your arsenal contains something more substantial than the ad hominem gun--or, if you just want to talk about liberty. For I can assure you that we are neither ignorant about liberty nor about the sneaky ways it has been curtailed through history.

[krazy kaju]

I've heard free market socialism used in association with mutualism, in which case it would mean a desire to eliminate government completely and the belief that this would lead to many worker cooperatives and the like forming due to the lack of barriers of entry.

[acptulsa]

I've heard free market socialism used in association with mutualism, in which case it would mean a desire to eliminate government completely and the belief that this would lead to many worker cooperatives and the like forming due to the lack of barriers of entry.

Yeah, that was one of the phrases he was using to argue that socialism itself isn't a form of government. Thus my doubt that these quasi-authorities would fail to grow into full-blown governments in short order (above). Power does love to draw more power unto itself...