Sup Forums and Libertarian Socialism

As in anti-authoritarian, non-hierarchical socialism where the people, not the State, own and control the economy.

What are your thoughts?

Equality, Democracy, and opposition to hierarchies is greatly undesirable in any degree.

The vast majority of Sup Forums is opposed.

Idealistic nonsense.

This is an assumption, but don't most people want freedom? Where this is a far-left philosophy, I can't see the freedom on the far-right side.

I can only see oppression. Am I wrong?

Why is freedom inherently good? Besides, the ultimate idea is not some totalitarian police state ruling over the masses and codifying morality. The ultimate idea is an organic society of cohesive families working together in a high-trust ethnostate freely choosing healthy habits and behaviors.

Good or not, the opposite of freedom is being owned by and/or subordinate to someone. Is that a state some actively and willingly pursue?

The idea you're conveying emphasizes an "organic society" and I think the core of far-left ideas like anarcho-syndicalism wants the same thing. What about the right's version of "organic society" is more appealing than the left's?

Syndicalism = trash

Mutualism = not my cup of tea but decent

What makes it nonsensical?

What aspect of syndicalism do you disagree with? Is there a form of a worker-controlled economy that you do agree with and is in your opinion more effective?

The left's vision of an organic society is not feasible because it is effectively global. Multiracial, broadly-tolerant democratically-driven societies are a breeding-ground for dysgenics and an absence of social cohesion, especially over time.

Between the bioligical realities of racial differencies, and the deep rifts between even the most similar ethnic groups and cultures, I simply do not believe it is feasible to expect for the peoples of the world to set aside their differences and coalesce into a global movement inclusive of all (besides those engaging in oppression)

Hierarchies are natural, equality is unnatural.

My conception of a society doesn't even necessitate violence, genocide, hatred, or supremacy, just separation. Ethnic homogeneity is one of the strongest cornerstones of a stable society you can offer. Ignoring it sets you back gravely.

DEAR Sup Forums,
THE WOOL IS BEING PULLED OVER YOUR EYES AND YOU ARE CHEERING FOR IT
TRUMP IS BRINGING IN OTHER BILLIONAIRE BUISNESSMEN INTO THE WHITE HOUSE BRINGING US CLOSER TO 1984 STYLE LIVING AND TRUE OLEGHARKY. YOU ARE THE RESISTANCE, IT'S TIME TO STOP FIGHTING YOUR FRIENDS!

I like to contemplate it while I drink dry water.

Might be possible one day when National socialism has been established.

Markets are more efficient regardless of whether they are controlled by the workers or if they are controlled in a hierarchical form by committee, hence why I say mutualism, while not perfect, is a decent model, whereas syndicalism, which does not include a market, is bad. I oppose mutualism because I think people have a right to form corporations in anyway they like as long as it is consented to by the people working for the company, regardless of whether the company is hierarchically controlled or cooperatively controlled.

..What?

>Libertarian Socialism
Literally a oxymoron

>BRINGING US CLOSER TO 1984 STYLE LIVING AND TRUE OLEGHARKY
nigger we've been a mix of a Huxley and Orwellian nightmare, where have you been?

And he lies like a jew... oh wait.. he is a jew.

Libertarian (not the popular American-definition): anti-authoritarian.

Socialism: democratic, people-owned means of production.

the fuck is this and how is it relevant?

>where the people, not the State, own and control the economy

The 'economy' is a function of property, so you're arguing for capitalism.

what do you do with the people that don't agree? Dipshit utopians need kicked in the balls. that goes for both socialist and libertarians. so your a double dipshit.

>anti authoritarian
>punishment for engaging in free trade is death, therefore, authoritarian
So yeah, it is indeed an oxymoron.
And let's not forget that the process to achieve this ideology involve murder and robbery. Not even fascism is this authoritarian.

Perhaps this is better fit for another thread, but what is the reasoning for this emphasis on ethnic purity, assuming I'm reading into it correctly. Doesn't the proliferation of "good" genes benefit from diversity?

Yes, the whole community getting along differences aside isn't something that'll happen anytime soon. But isn't part of that attributed to the fact that so many believe that it hands down can't and won't happen? Just because it doesn't exist or hasn't existed doesn't mean it can't.

I disagree. In a pure state of nature, I don't see an implicit hierarchy in a collection of humans. It's like if I had a bag of different colored polygons. Some are red, some are purple, some have more sides than the other. But to create a hierarchy, an order has to be imposed upon the set. It's not inherent to it. It's just a sack of things.

By separation, do you mean "go ahead, do what you want as long as you don't bother me or anyone" (a principle I'd agree with), or more like a systematic categorization and isolation?

This sounds more like communism.

Yeah, Libertarian Socialism is actually communism with few little differences.
It's basically shit.

I may not have defined it properly, but the general idea I meant to convey was a framework in which the people, not the state nor the elite few, have the most power.

On the "People vs State" spectrum, they're on opposite sides. That's a significant difference.

yeah, what are you talking about