Libertarian Socialist Society Thread!

There's a socialist and an anarchist society with their own threads, so I thought I'd make one for specifically for the libertarian socialists!

Before anyone says anything, this is not an oxymoron. Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production. A libertarian is a person who advocates liberty. Libertarian socialism should be differentiated from right libertarianism with it's emphasis on capitalism, as opposed to libertarian socialism's anti-capitalism and anti-statism ideals.

Branches of Libertarian Socialism include Anarcho-Communism, Left Marxism, Collectivist anarchism, Anarcho-Syndicalism etc.

So ask, discuss, debate or whatever.

Libertarian Socialist Society

(edited 12 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Atlas will shrug.

It's about time we got a thread for this, watching.

Reply 3

IFondledAGibbon

Original post by turn and fall

Atlas will shrug.

Not a fan of that quote (if you could call it a quote). It doesn't really consider that the reason the "most creative" are "creative" is often due to the fortuitous circumstances of their birth and upbringing. Even so, it's pretty obvious that society relies on the proletariat as the makers of goods.

Reply 4

turn and fall

Not a fan of that quote (if you could call it a quote).

Gosh I am suprised. Perhaps because if the conjecture is true then your idealogy will fail.

It doesn't really consider that the reason the "most creative" are "creative" is often due to the fortuitous circumstances of their birth and upbringing.

*******s. The main reason people produce goods and services is so they can live a better life. They can give their children a better life. They can live in a nicer home. You seem to just assume these noble motivations do not exist.

I can tell you my dad works hard and produces a very valuable services because he wants his kids to have the best life possible. His noble selfish motivations have improved many peoples lives. And he certainly did not have fortuitous circumstances.

You really are patronising scum if you think people cannot improve their lives. That they are determined by the rank they started at. It is just plain insulting to many people.

And what is more patronising is that you seem to imply you know what is best for them.

Even so, it's pretty obvious that society relies on the proletariat as the makers of goods.

And the proletariat is Atlas. Atlas is everybody who is hard working and individualistic. The working classes will not tolerate not being able to own their own stuff. That is what the working classes is many cases most desire. A better life for themselves. Would you deny them that opportunity by not letting them having their property?

Reply 5

IFondledAGibbon

Original post by turn and fall

Gosh I am suprised. Perhaps because if the conjecture is true then your idealogy will fail.

*******s. The main reason people produce goods and services is so they can live a better life. They can give their children a better life. They can live in a nicer home. You seem to just assume these noble motivations do not exist.

I can tell you my dad works hard and produces a very valuable services because he wants his kids to have the best life possible. His noble selfish motivations have improved many peoples lives. And he certainly did not have fortuitous circumstances.

You really are patronising scum if you think people cannot improve their lives. That they are determined by the rank they started at. It is just plain insulting to many people.

And what is more patronising is that you seem to imply you know what is best for them.

And the proletariat is Atlas. Atlas is everybody who is hard working and individualistic. The working classes will not tolerate not being able to own their own stuff. That is what the working classes is many cases most desire. A better life for themselves. Would you deny them that opportunity by not letting them having their property?

Determined by the rank they started at? No. Heavily influenced by the arbitrary conditions of their upbringing? Yes. People may be able to improve their lives, but there's no doubt that others have a much greater opportunity to do so. I hope you don't believe the poor are poor because they lack some innate ability to work hard, or because they are agents of their own "free will" and have chosen to not to "try". In general, the poor stay poor because they are much less likely to make a profit due to the circumstances of their upbringing. Capitalism creates this divide.

Ownership isn't an ends, it's a means to happiness. If society removed self ownership then a better life for one's self would be synonymous to increasing the collective happiness of others. So people would work for conformity, to be valued or for self fulfillment. And by working, you increase the growth of the collective economy, leading somewhat indirectly to happiness.

Let's try and keep this civil, when things turn into a shouting match it becomes pretty unenjoyable.

Reply 6

turn and fall

Yes. People may be able to improve their lives, but there's no doubt that others have a much greater opportunity to do so.

The poorest in society have the greatest opportunity to improve their life. I would have thought that is obvious. Start low down and end high up.

I hope you don't believe the poor are poor because they lack some innate ability to work hard, or because they are agents of their own "free will" and have chosen to not to "try".

The poor are the poor for two reasons I believe.

1. The government keeps them poor, against their own intentions.

2. The poor are not as productive. They do not serve others as much as the rich. The poor give a lot less to society and thus get less back. You wealth is a measure of the benefit you have given to society. Bill Gates is phenominally wealthy because he has improved peoples lives to a phenominal extent.

In general, the poor stay poor because they are much less likely to make a profit due to the circumstances of their upbringing. Capitalism creates this divide.

Firstly we dont actually have capitalism.

Secondly in capitalism the poor in general will be the deserving poor because they will not have served their fellow man as much as a richer person.

Demonising the wealthy and promoting the poor are poor at the wealthies benefit is the heinous demagoguery.

Ownership isn't an ends, it's a means to happiness. If society removed self ownership then a better life for one's self would be synonymous to increasing the collective happiness of others. So people would work for conformity, to be valued or for self fulfillment. And by working, you increase the growth of the collective economy, leading somewhat indirectly to happiness.

Ever heard of the prisoners dilemna or the free rider problem?

Let's try and keep this civil, when things turn into a shouting match it becomes pretty unenjoyable.

Your ideas disgust me. Thats all :eek:

Reply 7

Sammydemon

Original post by turn and fall

Not everybody has the opportunity to be hard working in a situation where they can profit greatly. This is unfair.

If i was a dustbin man I could work my socks off but never afford to improve my family/status and own any worthwhile property.

Reply 8

turn and fall

Not everybody has the opportunity to be hard working in a situation where they can profit greatly. This is unfair.

I did not deny it was unfair.

But the question is what to do?

Do you try to make everyone equal. By perhaps bringing down the wealthy and giving the poor money?

Those solutions are stupid. They ulitmately imply that property needs to be taken or freedom constrained for the greater good. Collectivism is an ugly angel.

It is far better to let people be free. And allow them to improve their own lives their own way. Doing it at nobodies expense.

I am not aiming for equality. I am aiming for liberty and prosperity.

And in any case proper capitalism around the world would reduce the inequalities we see today. Suffering Africans would actually have a chance in life if global markets were liberalised and these nations defined property rights well. Capitalism is the most effective system of getting peopel out of poverty. The story of history is crystal clear.

If i was a dustbin man I could work my socks off but never afford to improve my family/status and own any worthwhile property.

Why?

Why do you assume that a dustbin man cannot improve their life? You left wingers are so condescending. You think you are for the poor but really you look at them as children that need to be governed and aided rather than liberated.

You are not for the poor. The poor need capitalism not socialism.

Reply 9

IFondledAGibbon

Original post by turn and fall

The poorest in society have the greatest opportunity to improve their life. I would have thought that is obvious. Start low down and end high up.

The poor are the poor for two reasons I believe.

1. The government keeps them poor, against their own intentions.

2. The poor are not as productive. They do not serve others as much as the rich. The poor give a lot less to society and thus get less back. You wealth is a measure of the benefit you have given to society. Bill Gates is phenominally wealthy because he has improved peoples lives to a phenominal extent.

Well yes, they have the greatest opportunity in numerical terms, but societal factors often prevent any meaningful realisation of this opportunity. As Sammydemon said, this is unfair.

In regards to you're first point, I'm not a proponent of representative governance (the way we currently have it), but I don't think most governments themselves actually maintain or create poverty.

Secondly, you haven't explained why a person does not "serve others". I'd also take issue with the way you're defining "benefit". Your wealth is a measure of your ability to create profit, I don't think profit necessarily benefits society. Especially when to create profit, you must exploit the proletariat. So who actually benefits society? The wealthy capitalist owner or the hard working laborer?

Again you're not taking into account the fact that the division in opportunities that capitalism will (or does, depending on your definition) create, have a huge impact on the ability of a person to "serve their fellow man". Essentially you're saying that the rich are deserving of their lower quality of life because of the arbitrary conditions of their upbringing.

And I'm not demonising the rich. I'm simply saying: any system that creates huge divisions in quality of life often based on factors that are outside the individual's control is illegitimate.

Yes I've heard of those problems. Would you like me to have a crack at them?

Reply 10

GeneralOJB

Libertarians are ****ing stupid.

Reply 11

IFondledAGibbon

Original post by GeneralOJB

Libertarians are ****ing stupid.

That's helpful. And just to be clear, are you referring to the liberalists or the socialists? Or both?

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 12

turn and fall

but I don't think most governments themselves actually maintain or create poverty.

They do. They greatest constraint on the poor is paternalistic government.

Secondly, you haven't explained why a person does not "serve others".

Trade. You get money through trade. Trade benefits both parties. For you to make £100 (sell something for £100) somebody else must be willing to buy it for £100 (and most of the time they are willing to pay more so that make a profit)

In this case you have benefited society in excess of £100. Trade does not happen unless both people win. Life is not a zero sum game. Gordon Ghecko is wrong.

I'd also take issue with the way you're defining "benefit". Your wealth is a measure of your ability to create profit, I don't think profit necessarily benefits society.

Profit is a product of trade. If you have made a lot of profit. You have traded a lot. And therefore benefited society a lot.

Especially when to create profit, you must exploit the proletariat.

YOU MUST

wft is wrong with you. Labour is trade. For trade to happen both parties must benefit.

Because you do not understand this simple fact you have come to ridiculous conclusions because your fundamental understanding of capitalism is laughable.

So who actually benefits society? The wealthy capitalist owner or the hard working laborer?

Both. And the consumers. And the producer of the raw materials. And the producer of the capital.

Trade benefits all parties. I cannot reiterate this point enough to you.

Yes I am. I just think the best way for those who are poor to make their lives better is to get stuck in and trade.

And I'm not demonising the rich. I'm simply saying: any system that creates huge divisions in quality of life often based on factors that are outside the individual's control is illegitimate.

Yes you are demonising the rich. You are saying the rich exploit the poor. (which is not true)

(In our society the poor (actually the middle classes) exploit the rich)

Yes I've heard of those problems. Would you like me to have a crack at them?

Ofcourse. Why did you even ask?

Reply 13

IFondledAGibbon

Original post by turn and fall

They do. They greatest constraint on the poor is paternalistic government.

Trade. You get money through trade. Trade benefits both parties. For you to make £100 (sell something for £100) somebody else must be willing to buy it for £100 (and most of the time they are willing to pay more so that make a profit)

In this case you have benefited society in excess of £100. Trade does not happen unless both people win. Life is not a zero sum game. Gordon Ghecko is wrong.

Profit is a product of trade. If you have made a lot of profit. You have traded a lot. And therefore benefited society a lot.

YOU MUST

wft is wrong with you. Labour is trade. For trade to happen both parties must benefit.

Because you do not understand this simple fact you have come to ridiculous conclusions because your fundamental understanding of capitalism is laughable.

Both. And the consumers. And the producer of the raw materials. And the producer of the capital.

Trade benefits all parties. I cannot reiterate this point enough to you.

Yes I am. I just think the best way for those who are poor to make their lives better is to get stuck in and trade.

Yes you are demonising the rich. You are saying the rich exploit the poor. (which is not true)

(In our society the poor (actually the middle classes) exploit the rich)

Ofcourse. Why did you even ask?

You make it really difficult to discuss things when you address every sentence separately and come out with those little ad hominem attacks. Nevertheless I will try to continue.

Firstly, I think defining "benefit" purely in terms of economic growth is fallacious. I understand that by trading, you increase profit and thus economic growth. But who exactly benefits? Society? If the system results in a mass uneven distribution of this economic growth then it is illegitimate. I.E. it does not maximise utility.

Secondly, When I'm talking about exploitation, I'm referring to exploitation of surplus labour (or unpaid labour) from the labour force. The more surplus labour generated from the worker, the greater the profit. If you pay the worker an amount equal to the market value of his produce, then you don't create any profit. Therefore, to make profit you must exploit the proletariat.

But all trade is voluntary, right? If you are offered with a 'work or die' ultimatum then you are ultimately not making any sort of free or voluntary decision. Capitalism forces people into a social contract in which they have to trade. But it also forces people into detrimental social conditions that reduce people's capacity to generate any meaningful property.

It may be beneficial for the poor man to 'get stuck in and trade'. However, that doesn't justify the conditions created by the system that made him poor.

As for game theory and other issues, I don’t see them as huge barriers to socialism. There are many social factors that will increase someone’s participation in the work force. The idea that once recourses are evenly distributed everyone will just stop working leach off the collective wealth is a little cynical. If society taught cooperation instead of individualism and collectivism instead of personal gain the people would generally conform to the societal norms. Even if conformation is a self interest in itself.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 14

turn and fall

You make it really difficult to discuss things when you address every sentence separately and come out with those little ad hominem attacks. Nevertheless I will try to continue.

No. What I am doing is methodically going through everything you say and undermining it. The problem for you is one of two or both. Either you are not smart enough to respond to each individual point I make (I think you are bright so that is not likely) or you are actually wrong (much more likely).

So I shall carry on undermining as many paragraphs as possible. I do not want a discussion as much as I want to show that you are wrong. So any sane reader can realise your ideas are unworkable and dangerous.

Firstly, I think defining "benefit" purely in terms of economic growth is fallacious. I understand that by trading, you increase profit and thus economic growth. But who exactly benefits? Society? If the system results in a mass uneven distribution of this economic growth then it is illegitimate. I.E. it does not maximise utility.

I said nothing about economic growth. I am talking about wealth. Wealth is a stock concept. Growth is a flow concept. They are quite different. I would rather be in a wealthy economy than a growing one for example.

Secondly, When I'm talking about exploitation, I'm referring to exploitation of surplus labour (or unpaid labour) from the labour force. The more surplus labour generated from the worker, the greater the profit. If you pay the worker an amount equal to the market value of his produce, then you don't create any profit. Therefore, to make profit you must exploit the proletariat.

Oh dear. You clearly have not done even AS economics.

Labour is a factor of production. Notice the word factor. Labour is not the only part of the production process and in many cases it is a very small part.

The other parts which lead to the final price are.
Land
Capital - Machines, Materials
Entrepruenship - The 'capitalist' organising the factors of production.

The surplus value is not exploitation. It is the cost of all the other factors of production. (And before you say what about accounting profit - that is the cost of entrepruenship - i.e the entrepruener needs a reason to organise the other factors)

Do you disagree with this analysis?

But all trade is voluntary, right? If you are offered with a 'work or die' ultimatum then you are ultimately not making any sort of free or voluntary decision. Capitalism forces people into a social contract in which they have to trade. But it also forces people into detrimental social conditions that reduce people's capacity to generate any meaningful property.

It may be beneficial for the poor man to 'get stuck in and trade'. However, that doesn't justify the conditions created by the system that made him poor.

The poverty you are reffering to is relative poverty. There is nothing wrong with one many owning a mansion and another owning a flat imo. That is relative poverty as the man with the flat is poor compared to the man with the mansion.

As for game theory and other issues, I don’t see them as huge barriers to socialism.

ROTFL. That is like saying 'The universe is not that big'

If society taught cooperation instead of individualism and collectivism instead of personal gain the people would generally conform to the societal norms.

I guess you are going to have to brainwash everybody. Suppose you are going to need an large state to enforce this 'education'. This sounds an awful lot like the road to serfdom.

As for game theory and other issues, I don’t see them as huge barriers to socialism. There are many social factors that will increase someone’s participation in the work force. The idea that once recourses are evenly distributed everyone will just stop working leach off the collective wealth is a little cynical. If society taught cooperation instead of individualism and collectivism instead of personal gain the people would generally conform to the societal norms. Even if conformation is a self interest in itself.

I am going to go back to this paragraph and use a bit of socractic dialogue to show you why you are wrong. The story will be a bit like an Ayn Rand story.

Turn and Fall lives in Ifondledagibson's society. He works for the collective interest. He is a jolly productive chap because he is bright.

One day Turn and Fall thinks

'Why am I doing all this work. I am not getting all of the benefit. Other people are stealing my work from me. This is not fair. I wish I could use my skills to improve my life even more'

Turn and Fall decides screw going to work. As there is no government in IfondledaGibson's society nobody stops TnF.

TnF then starts using his skills to make stuff. He then trades his produce with other people. TnF is mighty good at this and trades a lot. The people he trades with are very happy as they have more stuff. And TnF becomes very wealthy.

One day James comes to TnFs house and says

'Can I work for you TnF. You are really wealthy and I want to be like you'

'Sure you can James. I'll pay you a wage of x for the same work you do the IfondledaGibbon'

James - 'Awesome, I still produce for society and I get money, WIN WIN'

So James works with TnF and they both become very wealthy.

Soon all the workers for IfondledaGibbon start to realise that TnF is very rich. They decide to copy TnF and start their own business's. And soon a currency of gold develops between all of the people.

Eventually nobody is working for IfondledAGibbon. Everybody is producing things for themselves. And society is a lot richer. The entrpruenarial people like TnF and James create laws to define property rights and protect freedom to enter business.

ATLAS SHRUGGED

(I use myself in the story because I know that is what I would do so you have to be wrong)

We could just end the thread now tbh :cool:

Reply 15

Aj12

Original post by IFondledAGibbon

Ok so Socialism common ownership ok. SO would people be free to launch their own enterprises? How can you have a fully free society if people cannot own things?

Reply 16

username388799

Can you suggest any good books on how a libertarian economy would function?. I've read some of M. Albert's (Parecon) and P. Devine's work (participatory planning) as well as some of Fotopoulos's work (Inclusive Democracy). Are you aware of any other authors who have detailed and serious proposals? (not, "abolish private property and, perhaps, money and we shall lead paradisical lives").

Also, what do you think of market socialism? The style of market socialism Ricardian socialists would favour. I.e. public ownership of the means of production + free competition + free prices.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 17

IFondledAGibbon

Original post by turn and fall

All I’m saying is that it’s an annoying way to debate because it creates many separate miniature arguments that tend to deviate from the general topic of conversation. I’ll do it your way.

OK. That doesn’t really change my argument.

I didn’t realise an AS understanding of economics could totally debunk the whole of Marx’s labour theory of value. I didn’t actually say that labour is the only part of production. Marx made the distinction between the cost of production, which is the labour time spent on producing the good, and the surplus value, which is the difference between the good's price and its cost of production.

The main point in Marxist theory is that the cost of production is made up of both constant capital and variable capital. Constant capital is the machines, materials, etc. + the investments made by a capitalist entrepreneuran. The entrepreneur invests x value in constant capital, and it, in turn, confers precisely x value to the commodities it is used to produce over its useful life. To make a profit one must manipulate the variable capital I.E. human labour, by decreasing wages, increasing work hours, increasing productivity of the worker etc. Marx called this exploitation, the capitalist exploits the worker.

Capital = Constant capital (c) / Variable capital (v)

Essentially the difference between Marxist economists and Classical economists is that the former regard value is a form of social relationship. Whereas the latter regard value as a technical feature of economic calculus. I think whether or not we call it exploitation comes down to the core assumptions, it’s better to address those rather than the details of Marx’s theory of value.

Work or Die sounds bad but when you think about it actually translates to

'If you are not willing to serve your felllow man then you do not deserve the benefit of life'

So if you will not work why should you be given life? Why should somebody else pay for your life if you are not willing to serve others?

So actually it is a fairly sound moral principlle. If you dont help your fellow man then there is no reason for your existance.

(however severely disabled people and whatever are exceptions - as you point out work must be a choice)

I actually think that’s a terrible moral principle. You keep talking about “benefit”, it’s pretty obvious that the people who benefit the most are the bourgeoisie. Capitalism creates a situation in which people are brought up in terrible circumstances leading to their inevitable inability to gain wealth. They are then forced to accept a life of hard labour with minimal pay so that they don’t suffer in poverty. You then claim that this is ultimatum is ‘morally sound’ because they deserve to die if they don’t want to help others. This in the knowledge that the main people they will be helping are the rich minority, who also are only in the minority due to the fortuitous circumstances of their birth. What an absolutely awful system.

ROTFL. That is like saying 'The universe is not that big'

I guess you are going to have to brainwash everybody. Suppose you are going to need an large state to enforce this 'education'. This sounds an awful lot like the road to serfdom.

For such a society to exist there would have to be a social revolution in which the majority uphold the values described. This isn’t the case and therefore we don’t have a libertarian socialist society at the moment.

Really, all that work? Due to our society based on self-managed work in pleasant surroundings and a reduction of the working week to a minimum (due to 100% theoretical employment) almost everyone likes work.

Might I ask why you’re taking the time to post here? Why do people create sites such as Wiki? Why do people do volunteer work? Or give to charity?

Turn and Fall decides screw going to work. As there is no government in IfondledaGibson's society nobody stops TnF.

TnF then starts using his skills to make stuff. He then trades his produce with other people. TnF is mighty good at this and trades a lot. The people he trades with are very happy as they have more stuff. And TnF becomes very wealthy.

This is just ridiculous. You don’t own anything to trade, and neither do they. By taking private ownership of goods you would be stealing from the collective wealth. Anyway, why would someone trade with you when they can freely take what they need from the collective wealth? This whole crazy slippery slope creates a series of scenarios that aren’t logically linked.

C’MON SON!

One day James comes to TnFs house and says

'Can I work for you TnF. You are really wealthy and I want to be like you'

'Sure you can James. I'll pay you a wage of x for the same work you do the IfondledaGibbon'

James - 'Awesome, I still produce for society and I get money, WIN WIN'

So James works with TnF and they both become very wealthy.

Soon all the workers for IfondledaGibbon start to realise that TnF is very rich. They decide to copy TnF and start their own business's. And soon a currency of gold develops between all of the people.

Eventually nobody is working for IfondledAGibbon. Everybody is producing things for themselves. And society is a lot richer. The entrpruenarial people like TnF and James create laws to define property rights and protect freedom to enter business.

ATLAS SHRUGGED

(I use myself in the story because I know that is what I would do so you have to be wrong)

We could just end the thread now tbh :cool:

I wouldn’t publish.

Reply 18

turn and fall

I didn’t realise an AS understanding of economics could totally debunk the whole of Marx’s labour theory of value.

It does

And that really says something about Marxs economics because AS economics is crap.

which is the difference between the good's price and its cost of production.

That is just false.

The main point in Marxist theory is that the cost of production is made up of both constant capital and variable capital.

Okay so now I am going to use some A2 econimics :eek:

In the long run all factors of production are variable. That means there is no such thing as constant capital in the long run.

To make a profit one must manipulate the variable capital I.E. human labour, by decreasing wages, increasing work hours, increasing productivity of the worker etc.

Firstly increasing productivity is not exploitation methinks.

Secondly to make a profit that entrepruener can do other things. He can use advertising. He can buy more capital equipment. He could upgrade his capital. He could make a new product.

Capital = Constant capital (c) / Variable capital (v)

Absolute ****.

I think whether or not we call it exploitation comes down to the core assumptions, it’s better to address those rather than the details of Marx’s theory of value.

You are absolutely right. It comes down to core assumptions. And your core assumptions of production and trade are completely wrong and that is why you have come to such ridiculous conclusions. The foundations of your arguments are like quicksand.

I actually think that’s a terrible moral principle.

Is the alternative a better moral principle?

'If you are not willing to work then you should be able to steal other peoples property to live'

You keep talking about “benefit”, it’s pretty obvious that the people who benefit the most are the bourgeoisie.

Jesus christ. What did I tell you about trade and it being a positive sum game. Everybody wins and all that.

Capitalism creates a situation in which people are brought up in terrible circumstances leading to their inevitable inability to gain wealth.

Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system. The working classes do so much better in a free market economies it borders on ridiculous to argue capitalism makes peoples lives worse.

Look up the Cato Institute for most economically free countries

They are then forced to accept a life of hard labour

Nope. Capitalist nations have improved their standards of living so much hard labour is a thing of the past. This is because we have developed capital (machines) that do the hard work for us. (notice how in the long run capital is a variable factor).

with minimal pay so that they don’t suffer in poverty

Again wrong. If everybody gets paid a very small wage. Then goods and services will be very cheap. And therefore compared to the price of goods and services the wage will actually be good.

You then claim that this is ultimatum is ‘morally sound’ because they deserve to die if they don’t want to help others.

I am glad you have learnt something.

This in the knowledge that the main people they will be helping are the rich minority,

Wrong again. You may be a poor guy who runs his own local shop. That serves the local community.

who also are only in the minority due to the fortuitous circumstances of their birth.

Oh dear. Starting to use the old people cant improve their lives card. What an awful thing to imply.

Ahhhhh so you like mob rule. It doesnt matter about the minority as long as the majority want it. Harly sounds very libertarian to me. I actually wonder if you have a libertarian bone in your body. I am starting to think you stick libertarian on your idealogy so that you get accused of being a communist. Which is evidently failed idealogy.

Due to our society based on self-managed work in pleasant surroundings

Lol. Where are these pleasant surrondings. You have just assumed working conditions will be lovely.

and a reduction of the working week to a minimum

Wont less goods and services be produced then. And thus everybody in general is poorer because society has produced less.

(due to 100% theoretical employment) almost everyone likes work.

99.99% at the best. Because I would not work. I think a lot of others would not.

Might I ask why you’re taking the time to post here?

To try and find a challenge. Unfortunately dealing with your arguments is like crushing a bug. Although some peopel on TSR are very bright and have challenged me.

Why do people create sites such as Wiki? Why do people do volunteer work? Or give to charity?

Because they are already so wealthy they fancy indulging themselves. Most people work 90% and charity 10% (ofcourse without the work then people could not be charitable)

A society based solely on charity would not only be worse than a society based on consumer demand but it would never come into the conception.

This is just ridiculous. You don’t own anything to trade, and neither do they

How about I design a new product.(being an entrepruener) Nobody else can make it. Other people are willing to give me services like build me a house as a trade.

Your plan does not take acccount for new stuff being created and does not take account for services.

. By taking private ownership of goods you would be stealing from the collective wealth.

How could you steal if nobody has any property?

Anyway, why would someone trade with you when they can freely take what they need from the collective wealth?

Because I am so clever I designed a new product.

I wouldn’t publish.

Yeah but Ayn Rand did. Sold quite a few copies. Second to the bible I think.

(On the topic of the name of your idealogy as I have pointed out the libertarian part is bull****. But the socialist part is aswell. Socialism is when the state controls the factors of production. In your idealogy the collective controls the factors of production. Which is communism. Socialism is a methodolgy just like capitalism is a methodolgy. And they promote collectivism and individualism respectively)

Reply 19

Dahut

May I mention that libertarian socialism doesn't equal anarchism. There are libertarian socialist that include a state, at least for a period, like council communism, autonomism, communalism and participism.