Economic Models/Systems For Society Today/Tomorrow

[Canuckle]

7 hours ago, Optimist Prime said:

Libertarian Socialist as a term sounds to me like someone who wants the benefits of the social contract with none of the obligations. Everyone gets the same benefit from managing the farm, but the bookkeeper has a better job than the stall mucker and no one goes to jail for having a poke with the cow. 

Doesn't sound like any system I would like to be a part of. 

 

That's a bit of a misreading. We know for a fact not everyone is fit for certain roles in life. People have different skill sets, different abilities.  The difference is that people understand that without all the pieces working collectively, like any other top down private institution, the organization doesn't function.

 

Remember all the deemed "essential workers" out there during the pandemic. 

 

The idea of socialism is that people that collectively own the place are actually economically compensated for their part of their work. That's how co-operatives work.

 

This is the basis of a socialist economy.

 

The biggest hurdle I've had with any conversation on leftist political philosophy like this is always is the lack of familiarity with the concepts.

 

At the core the ISMS of capitalism and socialism are really talking about is who gets paid.

 

Top down structure the private ownership reap all the profits.  Profits are in essence unpaid labour. For if there was no labour exploitation there wouldn't be any profits to usurp in the first place.

 

Workers do all the work. Design the shit. Make the shit. Deliver the shit.

 

What does the leech on top do? What are stock holders contributions to the productive process?  Nadda

 

Those are the kinds of things libertarian socialists aim to change. That's what a socialist economic system aims to change. Worker/community ownership of the means of production.

 

You wouldn't want to live in that "system"?  We actually do already in many places. They just need to be more widespread than they are at the moment.

 

Because wage slavery clearly isn't working for the vast majority of people. And it's getting worse by the day.

Edited October 24, 2023 by Canuckle

[Canuckle]

20 minutes ago, AatuD2 said:

It is extremely hard to have many social contracts that come from Socialism, and yet keep their hands off of (personal) Libertarianism issues.

 

Care to clarify what you mean here?

[Bob Long]

45 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

Don't mistaken your own selfishness to everyone else... especially considering the structures and institutions which breeds the behavior and awards those kinds of "fuck you got mine" dog eat dog behavior to begin with.

 

Its not about needing socialism to be "treated fairly" and "opportunity."  It's about finding an alternative to one already make those things an impossibility just based on who you're born to and where you live. Class, status, power.

 

Claiming the socio economic ladder for the vast majority of people is a complete myth.  And the ones that do usually have to step on the necks of others to get there.

 

Capitalism is dogshit

 

But wanting to determine your own career path isn't selfish. Your socialist/anarchist stuff cant provide that for enough people so it always fails outside of some small examples that aren't truly socialist in the first place.

 

Like I said, in your scheme someone is always forced to pick the fruit.

[Bob Long]

36 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

 

That's a bit of a misreading. We know for a fact not everyone is fit for certain roles in life. People have different skill sets, different abilities.  The difference is that people understand that without all the pieces working collectively, like any other top down private institution, the organization doesn't function.

 

Remember all the deemed "essential workers" out there during the pandemic. 

 

The idea of socialism is that people that collectively own the place are actually economically compensated for their part of their work. That's how co-operatives work.

 

This is the basis of a socialist economy.

 

The biggest hurdle I've had with any conversation on leftist political philosophy like this is always is the lack of familiarity with the concepts.

 

At the core the ISMS of capitalism and socialism are really talking about is who gets paid.

 

Top down structure the private ownership reap all the profits.  Profits are in essence unpaid labour. For if there was no labour exploitation there wouldn't be any profits to usurp in the first place.

 

Workers do all the work. Design the shit. Make the shit. Deliver the shit.

 

What does the leech on top do? What are stock holders contributions to the productive process?  Nadda

 

Those are the kinds of things libertarian socialists aim to change

 

You wouldn't want to live in that "system"?  We actually do already in many places. They just need to be more widespread than they are at the moment.

 

Because wage slavery clearly isn't working for the vast majority of people. And it's getting worse by the day.

 

Do you have pension plans in your anarchist utopia?

[Canuckle]

45 minutes ago, AatuD2 said:

 

 

I just have to interject into your and @Bob Long's conversation that when it comes to the homeless crisis, it's actually mislabeled.  

 

It's a drug epidemic and a mental-health crisis.  

 

Yes, rent is expensive, and it's hard to find housing...  but being homeless is a symptom in Downtown Eastside, not the root cause of their issues. 

 

Anyways, carry on with capitalism vs. socialism  

 

Its not mislabeled.   It's not some this or that scenario. It's both.

 

You can find people living in their cars trying to hold down full time jobs all over the place.

 

People get priced out. Not enough to go around. And most wages aren't high enough for peole to rent a home these days let alone buy.  It was already a struggle for many to pay the bills and not go into debt pre pandemic and now it's even harder.

 

The stressors and trauma of life can certainly help push people into a mental health crisis, and drug misuse to cope with life, but it's not this explicit black and white thing here.  It can be connected in different ways for different people.  But yes, the underclass of society have that much harder time to find housing. And the middle class is getting squeezed harder than ever with that money trickling up to the top.

 

Recommended reading:

 

Barbara Eihrenreich "Nickel and Dimed." 2001.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_and_Dimed

 

 

[Optimist Prime]

59 minutes ago, AatuD2 said:

 

 

I just have to interject into your and @Bob Long's conversation that when it comes to the homeless crisis, it's actually mislabeled.  

 

It's a drug epidemic and a mental-health crisis.  

 

Yes, rent is expensive, and it's hard to find housing...  but being homeless is a symptom in Downtown Eastside, not the root cause of their issues. 

 

Anyways, carry on with capitalism vs. socialism  

I thought I lost a nephew to the DTES drug epidemic, but he resurfaced after 2.5 years without seeing his kids or family and got clean. Whew. 

[Canuckle]

Just now, Bob Long said:

Do you have pension plans in your anarchist utopia?

 

You wouldn't need them to begin with. But funny you mention pensions. You can thank socialist and anarchist and labour movements of the past for fighting such social safety nets that we enjoy today.

 

These things didn't just happen out of nowhere. These are things people fought and died to get.

 

The irony is thick, Bobby

[Optimist Prime]

39 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

 

That's a bit of a misreading. We know for a fact not everyone is fit for certain roles in life. People have different skill sets, different abilities.  The difference is that people understand that without all the pieces working collectively, like any other top down private institution, the organization doesn't function.

 

Remember all the deemed "essential workers" out there during the pandemic. 

 

The idea of socialism is that people that collectively own the place are actually economically compensated for their part of their work. That's how co-operatives work.

 

This is the basis of a socialist economy.

 

The biggest hurdle I've had with any conversation on leftist political philosophy like this is always is the lack of familiarity with the concepts.

 

At the core the ISMS of capitalism and socialism are really talking about is who gets paid.

 

Top down structure the private ownership reap all the profits.  Profits are in essence unpaid labour. For if there was no labour exploitation there wouldn't be any profits to usurp in the first place.

 

Workers do all the work. Design the shit. Make the shit. Deliver the shit.

 

What does the leech on top do? What are stock holders contributions to the productive process?  Nadda

 

Those are the kinds of things libertarian socialists aim to change

 

You wouldn't want to live in that "system"?  We actually do already in many places. They just need to be more widespread than they are at the moment.

 

Because wage slavery clearly isn't working for the vast majority of people. And it's getting worse by the day.

Good reply, thank you. I am thinking, while reading this, of Norways oil industry. the companies are allowed 10% of the profits after expenses and the rest goes to the people of Norway, hospitals roads et cetera. 

 

Where I am confused is that if no one does things for money, and the system is expanded to say everywhere, what in essense is accomplished? going back to trading 5 chickens for a goat between collectives? I would immagein pretty soon they would 'invent' the clay disc to symbolize five chickens or one goat, and you could trade your chickens in location A and get a disc, and trade your disc in location B for the goat. From that system springs money and we are right back to where we are now, at the start of the anarchist revolution in a way. I am not interested at all in working on that hypothetical experiment. I will back out of the thread now. I just have no interest in the idea, but you are well spoken on it. 

[AatuD2]

7 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

I thought I lost a nephew to the DTES drug epidemic, but he resurfaced after 2.5 years without seeing his kids or family and got clean. Whew. 

 

That's great to hear, and a story against the odds.  

 

10 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

 

Its not mislabeled.   It's not some this or that scenario. It's both.

 

You can find people living in their cars trying to hold down full time jobs all over the place.

 

People get priced out. Not enough to go around. And most wages aren't high enough for peole to rent a home these days let alone buy.  It was already a struggle for many to pay the bills and not go into debt pre pandemic and now it's even harder.

 

The stressors and trauma of life can certainly help push people into a mental health crisis, and drug misuse to cope with life, but it's not this explicit black and white thing here.  It can be connected in different ways for different people.  But yes, the underclass of society have that much harder time to find housing. And the middle class is getting squeezed harder than ever with that money trickling up to the top.

 

Recommended reading:

 

Barbara Eihrenreich "Nickel and Dimed." 2001.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_and_Dimed

 

 

 

 

I was referring to the homeless living in Vancouver on the streets when I read 'homeless crisis'.  They're not holding down any jobs and have either severe mental disorders and/or a heavy drug addiction to even consider housing as an issue in their life.  

 

Low class and middle class do indeed have housing as a pressing issue in BC.  People shouldn't have to live with roommates in their 40s and 50s in order to afford a place to live.  

 

[Bob Long]

12 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

 

You wouldn't need them to begin with. But funny you mention pensions. You can thank socialist and anarchist and labour movements of the past for fighting such social safety nets that we enjoy today.

 

These things didn't just happen out of nowhere. These are things people fought and died to get.

 

The irony is thick, Bobby

 

Pensions also have... Gasp... Shareholders.

 

You haven't addressed the issue of career choices yet. Sure it works in a tiny bubble of people playing socialist that can still walk to a 7-11.

 

Explain to me why my career choices would be better under your system.

[Canuckle]

5 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

I thought I lost a nephew to the DTES drug epidemic, but he resurfaced after 2.5 years without seeing his kids or family and got clean. Whew. 

 

Fucking good on him. I love hearing success stories--We don't see many of them in Frontline work.

 

How did he crawl his way out?

2 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

Good reply, thank you. I am thinking, while reading this, of Norways oil industry. the companies are allowed 10% of the profits after expenses and the rest goes to the people of Norway, hospitals roads et cetera. 

 

Where I am confused is that if no one does things for money, and the system is expanded to say everywhere, what in essense is accomplished? going back to trading 5 chickens for a goat between collectives? I would immagein pretty soon they would 'invent' the clay disc to symbolize five chickens or one goat, and you could trade your chickens in location A and get a disc, and trade your disc in location B for the goat. From that system springs money and we are right back to where we are now, at the start of the anarchist revolution in a way. I am not interested at all in working on that hypothetical experiment. I will back out of the thread now. I just have no interest in the idea, but you are well spoken on it. 

 

I think you're getting ahead of yourself here.  There are many different ideas how to achieve a more equitable distribution of resources, both market and non market forms.
 

Just because you change the way the internal structure of an organization  works and the field hands get paid for their actual work doesn't mean you're back to some stone age conception of barter here. Speaking of which you should read the book

 

DEBT: The first 5000 years by David A. Graebar

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years

 

I don't find any of the things you listed as remotely accurate in terms of means to achieving or the outcomes of such changes to the structure of economy or society writ large.

 

When you speak of "nobody doing things for money" in society I assume you mean an communist stateless, classless, moneyless society?

 

Communism may or may not be a desired outcome depending on the particular philosophy you are talking about. Some may share traits or ideas but not all agree on everything.

 

People think of these terms like  "socialism" or "communism" with such broad and especially inaccurate strokes conjuring ideas of the Red fascists of the USSR when these things are really anything but that.

 

 

[Canuckle]

28 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

But wanting to determine your own career path isn't selfish. Your socialist/anarchist stuff cant provide that for enough people so it always fails outside of some small examples that aren't truly socialist in the first place.

 

Like I said, in your scheme someone is always forced to pick the fruit.

 

People are forced to pick the fruit RIGHT NOW bud. Banana republics exist.

 

And just because you wouldn't do it doesn't mean other people wouldn't want to.  At least they'd actually make a wage they can live on and thrive on.

 

You could still carve out your own "career" based on your interests and skill sets with a different economic model.

 

And we've been thru this before. You don't know what you're talking about because you haven't done the readings to understand the stuff.

 

Also you're wrong. There are LARGE examples over history. Still to this day.  Problem is they usually kept getting murdered by the state or invading forces of other states so they don't last long.  But the philosophy is sound.

 

So much so it was able to get them pensions you so very much want to speak about!

 

[AatuD2]

52 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

 

Care to clarify what you mean here?

 

Libertarianism would advocate against the government meddling with people's individual rights of any sort.  

 

Socialism would have profits shared between workers as you mentioned, but also many social safety nets covered, much more then capitalism.  Social safety nets need to exist but also imply that others shouldn't take advantage of them as they'd be taking advantage of everyone else (that pays into them).  

 

 

 

Authoritarians who tolerate no private enterprise believe the state should control means of production. This authoritarian form is referred to as socialism. 

So Socialism would fall somewhere between Authoritarian and Progressive...  not on the Libertarian. 

 

Are you perhaps referring to some anarchist form of Socialism where the state is not involved?  Those are failed dreams of Portland and Seattle that have turned those cities into crap. 

[Canuckle]

Just now, AatuD2 said:

 

Libertarianism would advocate against the government meddling with people's individual rights of any sort.  

 

Socialism would have profits shared between workers as you mentioned, but also many social safety nets covered, much more then capitalism.  Social safety nets need to exist but also imply that others shouldn't take advantage of them as they'd be taking advantage of everyone else (that pays into them).  

 

 

 

Authoritarians who tolerate no private enterprise believe the state should control means of production. This authoritarian form is referred to as socialism. 

So Socialism would fall somewhere between Authoritarian and Progressive...  not on the Libertarian. 

 

Are you perhaps referring to some anarchist form of Socialism where the state is not involved?  Those are failed dreams of Portland and Seattle that have turned those cities into crap. 

 

That chart isn't remotely accurate. And neither are the false examples you provided.

 

For starters, libertarianism is a LEFTIST term which was later co-opted by the right. If you tell someone in France or Spain your a libertarian they know you are a leftist:

 

In the mid-19th century, libertarianism originated as a form of left-wing politics such as anti-authoritarian and anti-state socialists like anarchists, especially social anarchists, but more generally libertarian communists/Marxists and libertarian socialists. These libertarians sought to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, or else to restrict their purview or effects to usufruct property norms, in favor of common or cooperative ownership and management, viewing private property as a barrier to freedom and liberty. While all libertarians support some level of individual rights, left-libertarians differ by supporting an egalitarian redistribution of natural resources. Left-libertarian ideologies include anarchist schools of thought, alongside many other anti-paternalist and New Left schools of thought centered around economic egalitarianism as well as geolibertarianism, green politics, market-oriented left-libertarianism and the Steiner–Vallentyne school. After the fall of the Soviet Union, libertarian socialism grew in popularity and influence as part of anti-war, anti-capitalist and anti- and alter-globalisation movements.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

 

And this "authoritarian socialism" you speak of is better described at state capitalism believe it or not.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

 

But you're right.  That's not the idea at all.

 

FYI, there have been many many different socialisms (PLURAL) over the millenia.  The conception of the term long predates even Karl Marx.

 

[Bob Long]

14 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

 

People are forced to pick the fruit RIGHT NOW bud. Banana republics exist.

 

And just because you wouldn't do it doesn't mean other people wouldn't want to.  At least they'd actually make a wage they can live on and thrive on.

 

You could still carve out your own "career" based on your interests and skill sets with a different economic model.

 

And we've been thru this before. You don't know what you're talking about because you haven't done the readings to understand the stuff.

 

Also you're wrong. There are LARGE examples over history. Still to this day.  Problem is they usually kept getting murdered by the state or invading forces of other states so they don't last long.  But the philosophy is sound.

 

So much so it was able to get them pensions you so very much want to speak about!

 

 

Give me a LARGE example. And if they can't defend themselves they are kinda useless.

 

Again you haven't properly explained how choices would work for the entire population. What will you do with the people that don't want to do what your leaders want?

 

Also please stop assuming what education I have and I'll do you the same respect.

Edited October 24, 2023 by Bob Long

[AatuD2]

22 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

Pensions also have... Gasp... Shareholders.

 

You haven't addressed the issue of career choices yet. Sure it works in a tiny bubble of people playing socialist that can still walk to a 7-11.

 

Explain to me why my career choices would be better under your system.

 

People that speak for Capitalism will point out that more people as a percentage world-wide have been lifted out of abject poverty in the last however many decades then ever before.  

 

It's really hard to argue with that fact. 

 

 

 

My biggest issue at the moment with Capitalism is the incredible influence that the military/arms companies have in promoting never-ending wars worldwide.  

Eisenhower's farewell speech from 60 years ago has never been more relevant and actually speaks to the topic at hand here. 

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

 

That chart isn't remotely accurate. And neither are the false examples you provided.

 

For starters, libertarianism is a LEFTIST term which was later co-opted by the right. If you tell someone in France or Spain your a libertarian they know you are a leftist:

 

In the mid-19th century, libertarianism originated as a form of left-wing politics such as anti-authoritarian and anti-state socialists like anarchists, especially social anarchists, but more generally libertarian communists/Marxists and libertarian socialists. These libertarians sought to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, or else to restrict their purview or effects to usufruct property norms, in favor of common or cooperative ownership and management, viewing private property as a barrier to freedom and liberty. While all libertarians support some level of individual rights, left-libertarians differ by supporting an egalitarian redistribution of natural resources. Left-libertarian ideologies include anarchist schools of thought, alongside many other anti-paternalist and New Left schools of thought centered around economic egalitarianism as well as geolibertarianism, green politics, market-oriented left-libertarianism and the Steiner–Vallentyne school. After the fall of the Soviet Union, libertarian socialism grew in popularity and influence as part of anti-war, anti-capitalist and anti- and alter-globalisation movements.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

 

And this "authoritarian socialism" you speak of is better described at state capitalism believe it or not.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

 

But you're right.  That's not the idea at all.

 

FYI, there have been many many different socialisms (PLURAL) over the millenia.  The conception of the term long predates even Karl Marx.

 

 

You have a very advanced and detailed view of Socialism.  Mine is pretty basic by comparison. 

[Bob Long]

4 minutes ago, AatuD2 said:

 

People that speak for Capitalism will point out that more people as a percentage world-wide have been lifted out of abject poverty in the last however many decades then ever before.  

 

It's really hard to argue with that fact. 

 

 

 

My biggest issue at the moment with Capitalism is the incredible influence that the military/arms companies have in promoting never-ending wars worldwide.  

Eisenhower's farewell speech from 60 years ago has never been more relevant and actually speaks to the topic at hand here. 

 

 

 

 

You have a very advanced and detailed view of Socialism.  Mine is pretty basic by comparison. 

 

What's the saying - the only thing worse than being exploited by capitalism is not being exploited by capitalism?

 

Our friend hasn't yet explained how choice will work. That's a key feature of the socialist failures to date.

 

At the end of the day someone picks beets at gunpoint in his commie utopia.

[Canuckle]

11 minutes ago, AatuD2 said:

 

People that speak for Capitalism will point out that more people as a percentage world-wide have been lifted out of abject poverty in the last however many decades then ever before.  

 

It's really hard to argue with that fact. 

 

 

 

My biggest issue at the moment with Capitalism is the incredible influence that the military/arms companies have in promoting never-ending wars worldwide.  

Eisenhower's farewell speech from 60 years ago has never been more relevant and actually speaks to the topic at hand here. 

 

 

 

 

You have a very advanced and detailed view of Socialism.  Mine is pretty basic by comparison. 

 

Hey that's ok. If you come with an open mind I'm more than happy to try and explain any questions you have on the topic.

 

"Capitalism pull people from poverty" is always be a great cheerleading phrase. Unfortunately the statement isn't really true when you dig under the surface a little.

 

Truth is the rise of science and technology are the reason things are made easier for humans, better quality of life (also subjectively speaking) and not because of some ism which we live under at the time some human conjured some better new tool or better system to make life easier.

 

Sure, advances have been made under a capitalist economy (with leeches at the top making money and the workers getting peanuts) but it's not saying all that much in terms of its efficacy to bring do what you're saying... especially to the level which other economic systems could do just as well, and frankly, even better and on a wider scale if actually given a chance.

 

The others simply haven't been to often show it because the places that try get fucking murdered before they can usually get anywhere.

 

Crediting capitalism itself would be a mistake.  Just like crediting socialism itself for the space program in the USSR beating the US would be a mistake in the same way, know what I mean?  

 

There's a reason they have overt and covert invasions of countries when "socialism takes root". Whether  it means toppling democratically elected leaders like Salvador Allende or Mohammad Mossadegh, its all saying the same thing.

 

And ah there it is. The military industrial complex and the war economy is a big one. Foreign policy, colonialism and capitalism always in search of the next resource to plunder for the economic elite. Wars are big money. And they always require a new enemy to fight. And who better to fight than those who wish to emancipate themselves from systemic oppression to which the ownership class directly benefits, home and abroad. Alas, there ain't no war but a class war.

 

[Canuckle]

33 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

What's the saying - the only thing worse than being exploited by capitalism is not being exploited by capitalism?

 

Our friend hasn't yet explained how choice will work. That's a key feature of the socialist failures to date.

 

At the end of the day someone picks beets at gunpoint in his commie utopia.

You went from saying how much you love co-operatives, the backbone of market socialism, to... whatever that crap is?

 

You really gotta put down that book of cold war propaganda you're reading from because it ain't doing you any favors here. Secondly, I've provided  TONS of links and reading material to you DIRECTLY yet you've clearly done ZERO reading to understand this stuff.

 

Put some effort in.

[Bob Long]

4 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

You went from saying how much you love co-operatives, the backbone of market socialism, to... whatever that crap is?

 

You really gotta put down that book of cold war propaganda you're reading from because it ain't doing you any favors here. Secondly, I've provided  TONS of links and reading material to you DIRECTLY yet you've clearly done ZERO reading to understand this stuff.

 

Put some effort in.

 

Be your own advocate, post the arguments yourself.

 

Yes co-ops are awesome. 

 

Particularly when someone chooses to do it.

 

Your lack of a coherent argument about choice speaks volumes.

[Canuckle]

9 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

Be your own advocate, post the arguments yourself.

 

Yes co-ops are awesome. 

 

Particularly when someone chooses to do it.

 

Your lack of a coherent argument about choice speaks volumes.

My arguments are fine, thanks. Your lack of knowledge on the topic is not.

 

For example even your so called questions. What would your "leaders" choose.  Thats not how direct democracy works. That's not how collectives work.

 

The question itself is as dumb as your assertions about them.

 

And if you did even an ounce of research on the topic you wouldn't have asked the question in the first place.

 

 Like I said. Put some effort in

 

Edited October 24, 2023 by Canuckle

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, Canuckle said:

 

That chart isn't remotely accurate. And neither are the false examples you provided.

 

For starters, libertarianism is a LEFTIST term which was later co-opted by the right. If you tell someone in France or Spain your a libertarian they know you are a leftist:

 

In the mid-19th century, libertarianism originated as a form of left-wing politics such as anti-authoritarian and anti-state socialists like anarchists, especially social anarchists, but more generally libertarian communists/Marxists and libertarian socialists. These libertarians sought to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, or else to restrict their purview or effects to usufruct property norms, in favor of common or cooperative ownership and management, viewing private property as a barrier to freedom and liberty. While all libertarians support some level of individual rights, left-libertarians differ by supporting an egalitarian redistribution of natural resources. Left-libertarian ideologies include anarchist schools of thought, alongside many other anti-paternalist and New Left schools of thought centered around economic egalitarianism as well as geolibertarianism, green politics, market-oriented left-libertarianism and the Steiner–Vallentyne school. After the fall of the Soviet Union, libertarian socialism grew in popularity and influence as part of anti-war, anti-capitalist and anti- and alter-globalisation movements.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

 

And this "authoritarian socialism" you speak of is better described at state capitalism believe it or not.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

 

But you're right.  That's not the idea at all.

 

FYI, there have been many many different socialisms (PLURAL) over the millenia.  The conception of the term long predates even Karl Marx.

 

Sounds good and like where the earth is in Star Trek. In this new world is their democracy? Are the leaders of society voted for? 

[Bob Long]

17 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

My arguments are fine, thanks. Your lack of knowledge on the topic is not.

 

For example even your so called questions. What would your "leaders" choose.  Thats not how direct democracy works. That's not how collectives work.

 

The question itself is as dumb as your assertions about them.

 

And if you did even an ounce of research on the topic you wouldn't have asked the question in the first place.

 

 Like I said. Put some effort in

 

 

Cool so insults. That is a great way to get people on your side.

 

Just explain it simply. Or maybe that's the problem, you can't. You have to abstract this anarchist nonsense to the point where it's not practical.

 

Just explain it like I'm 5. How do I choose in your utopia? What job I have or where I live?

 

Edited October 24, 2023 by Bob Long

[Bob Long]

2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Sounds good and like where the earth is in Star Trek. In this new world is their democracy? Are the leaders of society voted for? 

 

Oh Alf they are too evolved for leaders. 

[Bob Long]

Picture a scene, a man on a street corner trying to convert people to his ideas by yelling "PUT SOME EFFORT IN!" at them.