Thoughts on this YouTuber?

Thoughts on this YouTuber?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
youtube.com/watch?v=s6zO-qhQx_8
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>libertarian
>socialist

What jewry is this?

Ugly little faggot who is mad at PJW for making 100x more $$$ on his channel.
Also complete lunatic.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
This is the most retarded shit ever

A pseudo edgy, privileged 20 something, who has no understanding of politics, history or economics. Has a cult like audience of edgy teenagers.

Cool dude, I watch a lot of his content. Sup Forums is way too bigoted to do so though

libertarian is/was used to describe left anarchists. syndicalists.

americans use libertarian differently.

>Libertarian socialist
>Anarcho communist

Are these people just memeing or are they serious? This is the silliest stuff i've ever seen. How do you enfirce socialism or communism without a state?

You have to think that everyone is equal in everything

only after "liberal" was stolen by progs

And it always was contradictory.

Still doesn't justify the socialist part.

capitalism needs a state more than commies would.

ancaps are the dumbest of all anarchists. except primitivists of course.

same way you enforce property rights i imagine

anarcho communism is basically communism when you just don't call the state a state

Legitimately gave him a chance. He lives up to the 'rants' part more than anything else-just over emotional yelling sprinkled with shallow 'left wing' buzzwords.

there are right and left currents of libertarianism

I was in a game with him before.

eh. ive read a lot on it when i was younger.


i like bakunin. he was an alright guy. he hated jews and thought marx was a dick.

youtube.com/watch?v=s6zO-qhQx_8

Reminder.

the end goal of marxism was a stateless society.

its just impossible.

which is why he was a dumb fuck.

Still doesn't explain the cognitive dissonance.

Libertarianism advocates for as little centralized power and as little taxation as possible.

Meanwhile socialism typically requires regulation by some sort of centralized power and social policies and programs that require taxation of the populace to fund.

...

>capitalism needs a state more than commies would.
Yup, people are just going to willingly give up their property by themselves of their own volition :^)

in their form of thinking collectives would be established. so it wouldnt be a centralized power.

so its authoritarian as well. user posted here.its all pretty naive if you ask me.

He literally has assburgers, which he admitted in one of his recent videos, which probably partly explains why his chosen ideology is so retarded.

One of his video's is about workplace sabotage which is similiar to the dumb Anarcho-Commie shit I read on RevLeft a couple years ago when I was trolling it, basically explaining how to get fired the quickest way possible by annoying the shit out of your boss and helping other people steal shit from the company. Of course the prelude to this was how LibSoc was denied a job because of his autism and how unjustified this was.

Reminder about the old daily reminder that anarcho-socialists are full of shit.

they will tell you then but "muh revolutionary spain", whilst forgetting that land owners and capitalists left the place in fear (hence it was a peaceful takeover) and came back later with an army at their side (not so peaceful, after all)

Libertarian socialism is a complete oxymoron. I'm not having this fucking discussion again. The guy is a retard.

Cool picture, but it doesn't really cut out all of the possibilities it should. Someone could want tons of right wing things and tons of left wing things, but all without a government. As a result, they would find themselves on the bottom corner of your triangle. This may be misleading, because unless the general culture they are in supports them completely, they would still be unable to get their shit without a government.

...

>libertarian socialist
The name fucking contradicts itself.

kid has issues

No there aren't. You cannot have the social safety nets of socialism without government coercion.