Libertarian Socialism

Ask a Libertarian Socialist anything.

When your father fucked you did he look you in the eye or take you from behind?

Nice trips bruh

How did you come out to your parents?

Follow up

Was there glitter?

Funny. How about an actual argument?

>libertarian
>socialist
How's that nigger gene working out for you?

Libertarian Socialists are not using the terms in the way they're normally used.

We take 'Libertarian' to mean maximum freedom offered to the individual, and 'Socialism' to mean workers' Democratic control over the means of production in a non-hierarchical structure.

Is it Immoral for me to make a consensual trade with another person?
At which point does an economy become immoral and government needs to intervene and tax?

Self check

And we have examples of this working too. For example, Revolutionary Catalonia during the 1930's. Anarcho-Syndicalists/Libertarian Socialists took over in the mid-1930's.

To quote George Orwell in his essay 'Homage to Catalonia':
>"It was the first time I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle. Practically every building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags or with the red and black flag of the Anarchists; every wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle and with the initials of the revolutionary parties; almost every church had been gutted and its images burnt. Churches here and there were being systematically demolished by gangs of workmen. Every shop and café had an inscription saying that it had been collectivised; even the bootblacks had been collectivised and their boxes painted red and black. Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal."

>sage>sage>sage>sage>sage
>sage G
>sage T
>sage F
>sage O

No, it is not immoral for you to trade. However, it is immoral for you to do so, according to LibSocs, for the express purpose of enriching yourself at the expense of the other person, as is what occurs under employer-employee relationships.

Bump

>Enriching yourself at the expense of the other person.

Did you just make an argument against taxation?

Yes, I did. Libertarian Socialists don't advocate for a State at all.

why did you post the anarcho-communist flag?
are you another /leftypol/ niggerfag

It can be used for any Left Libertarian/Anarchist position, such as Libertarian Socialism or Anarcho-Syndicalism

oh. so you believe in redistributing the wealth and all that right?

We believe in ending wage labour relations. Instead, the work that requires humans (such as production of petrochemicals, for example) would be managed by the workers themselves with democratically elected managers, and a coupon system would replace money, like it did in Catalonia.

All jobs that do not require humans such as production lines and cashiers would all be automated.

Because remember, in the modern world we DO have enough for everyone, but because of the profit motive under Capitalism only people with enough capital get access to these resources.

Class and all unjust hierarchy would be abolished to ensure maximum individual freedom.

whats it like being 17?

Most people here won't bother arguing with you because they've either gone through a socialism stage themselves, or they have already argued with people like you countless times. Or, at the very least, they've read/watched debates against people like you.

You initially asked for questions, not arguments.

Humans are inherently more greedy and selfish then you are making them out to be.

The system that you just described would become very corrupt very quickly.

Well, that didn't happen under Revolutionary Catalonia. The workers' unions made sure that no one became excessively greedy.

The reason it only lasted three years is because it was active in the middle of a civil war and was crushed by the Fascist armies.

even your special snowflake perfect condition examples can only last a couple years, huh?

All political spectrums comes down to is how humans treat each other.

At what point Is someone else able to use force to take profits from someones production?

If I find plants in the wild, start a fire and cook it up. You come along and ask for some of it.
I tell you to frigg off Randy.
Are you gonna kill me for it?

If no, where do you draw the line? If someone has a factory that produces, he should equally own the product as much as the gatherer.

Literally an isolated group and example. Neck yourself commie.

Have you tried therapy yet?

Not content with destroying the liberal tag, these faggots are now going after the libertarian tag in which the actual people interested in freedom took when liberal started to mean left leaning hypocrites.

We have other examples as well. For example, the entire economy of Yugoslavia was comprised of mini-communes for a while. The free territories of the Ukraine.

We were the original Libertarians, retard.

The term 'Libertarian' was originally used by Left-Anarchists. Right-wing Libertarians came afterwards.

I can cure both your communism and your sexual perversion, Comrade.

But real life interactions with feministas and wogs will do that over time.

Try not to get sexually assaulted.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

you and any other anrchists are literrally retardeed how the fuck do you progress as a society in a commune? the only possible way is pride/nationalism, religion or cult of personality, and how are going to organiza any advance? you see there's this neat little thing called governement that we cam up with a few years back
jk open to hearing your answers to these philospohical quandries

>socialism
>no state

Jesus, at least read Marx. Please, for the love of God, at least understand what you're critiquing.

What are your pronouns?

Whats it like being retarded twice?

How does it feel to fail at life?

Why?

That's the joke.
They get people roped with with 'commune' and 'utopia' turns out it just regresses to subsistence farming for small communities.

There's no way for them to advance, there's no way to defend against an organized military, and even if they had a military it'd just become a dictatorship (like IT ALWAYS DOES).

If you understood it you wouldn't be advocating it.

i remember when i used to support socialism, then i wasnt 13 anymore

What could you do against me in a libsoc society if I didn't contribute to your shitty system and employed people for my personal gain. Enforce rules so I couldn't do that or arrest me? (both totally not state functions by the way)

That's contradictory. Democracy is the enemy of libertarianism. If the workers own the means of production and not individuals, then the individual is not offered maximum freedom.

Both socialism and libertarianism stress the importance of the state. They just want different things from the state.
Jeez, you don't even understand your own ideology...

>muh utopia
Why do authoritarians think people expect this in the world when they aren't being told what to do?
No one ever claims anything is going to be a utopia.
The next thing you'll be asking is, " so when invading hordes come to steal your Utopia's goods are you just going to take it since their isn't a state to protect you?"

That's what every political idea want. It's like saying we want higher government expenditures and lower taxes!

What's it like being a malformed Irish virgin?

>OP gets insulted for being delusional
>"lel you can't even use proper arguments"
>arguments
>OP stops posting
You are the pinnacle of faggotry, OP

You want free famine I suppose?

National Syndicalism best syndicalism.

>it is immoral for you to do so, according to LibSocs, for the express purpose of enriching yourself at the expense of the other person, as is what occurs under employer-employee relationships.
Except it is not so. Any work relationship is based on the concept, that should two individuals cooperate, they will create wealth that would otherwise not be created/be lesser, and since cooperation is necessary, each side takes a part of the created wealth. Two people cooperating on equal terms may be coowners, and as such take equal part of the created wealth. Where the input of the individuals partaking in such a relationship is not equal, then so is not the amount of reward taken by participating individuals. In an employer-employee relationship, the employer provides the means which would otherwise be unavailable to the employee, which by nature obligates him to part of the generated wealth for the input he has added.

>read a bit further into the thread
nevermind, the guy is either retarded/ignorant of history/imprevious to the concept of efficiency and would rather labour for a tenth of what he would otherwise get in a different, more stable, more freedom-allowing and less hypocritical system, for the sole reason that he prefers a different name and the ability to vote on who his boss is rather than chose him from the people already owning a company.

why can’t you create a company without hierarchical structure? If your model is better, other people will follow your example.

But however we don’t usually see those types of companies (in most industries anyway) you talking about since whey been outcompeted by current ones. So can’t we say that hierarchal companies is superior and more efficient?

there are only two options, authoritarian left or libertarian right, let me explain myself, in a right wing oriented society the cultural influence on morals is enough to keep the people in check as they will not stray far from the norm, in a left wing society where culture and cultural morals do not bind people there is a necessity for a government to keep people in check, the authoritarian right has no point and would fail with the first movement that used the word freedom, and the libertarian left would be too weak to defend it's principles and would inevitably be replaced by the first alternative