Not looking for any particular vicious argument, I'd in fact like to hear your point of view.
I am a Libertarian Capitalist, I believe in free markets, I believe in Individualism, and I believe in private ownership.
Convince me, why should I be a leftist? Why should I believe in Collectivism? Why should I be a socialist/communist or whatever flavour of leftism there is?
Other urls found in this thread:
marxists.org
twitter.com
Individualism vs collectivism is a false dichotomy. A collective is just a group of individuals. If the interests of the individual are opposed to those of the collectI've, then it's simply one individual against many. If you side with the former then you simply have tyranny of a minority.
It will be easier to talk if you specify whether or not you believe in the state or not
I suppose I believe in small government which provides basic services.
Collective ownership would lead to greater individual anatomy for the vast majority of people.
Isn't that just liberal democracy
Convince me of your ideologies then. I'd like to hear your opinions.
That sort of freedom is an illusion. In the absence of strong government in a capitalist system, large for-profit organizations come to control every aspect of individual citizens' lives; what they eat, where they live, whether they live or die from lack of healthcare, and even very courses of their lives.
Even with strict adherence to your idea of "liberty", you would still be controlled by an authoritarian economic system that wants you to do the most amount of work for the least amount of pay. If you'd still believe yourself to be "free", I don't know what to tell you.
I suppose you are right in a way, but what makes leftism a good alternative?
Because when the revolution comes, and trust me it will, we will purge those with your ideology. It is just a matter of time. I have no desire to change your mind, just letting you know what will happen.
Not all leftists believe in state ownership of the means of productions - in fact, only National Bolsheviks (nazbols), Marxist-Leninists (MLs or tankies), and Social Democrats (socdems; less so than the other two) believe in this, and they're all small minorities.
Most people here are anarcho-communists (ancoms), who believe in immediate transition to a stateless, classless society based upon the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". The basic unit of organization is the free association of producers, where people temporarily unite to complete collective tasks according to what they need. No one "owns" anything, as that implies the presence of the monopolizing institution of organized violence that is the state (workers' councils and syndicates do not count as such, even if they kill reactionaries). All is for all, production is carried out according to what people need. Left communists (leftcoms; those who assert themselves as being more authentically communist than MLs and the like, seeing themselves as carrying on in full the negative science of materalism which Marx began) are another big group here and tend to be similar to ancoms in most of these practical respects, but will autistically screech when compared for a variety of reasons (some valid, others very questionable).
Woah, better check that edge m8! You might cut yourself!
We believe in a society of free and equal producers. The abolition of class society and commodity production is true liberty. Let us discuss this way, what do you like about capitalism? What don't you like about? And what are your qualms about socialism? Also, what does socialism mean to you?
and don't listen to this faggot, (state capitalist will get the wall too) he just wants to be edgy.
Yeah nah, not everyone is a teenager.
What if a collective wanted to go off on its own, return to free market? What actions would other collectives take?
A "free market" is freedom for capital. Not for people.
So no freedom for people after all? Interesting…
No, listen to that faggot. Communism is just greedy shitheads taking things from you by force.
Socialism (at least, the libertarian flavors of it) means taking control of your life. It means adopting an economic system that is not based around accruing wealth for the elite, but fulfilling human needs and maximizing individual potential.
As socialists, we believe in democratic workplaces where the workers decide how things get done. We believe in the automation of menial and repetitive tasks, and the eventual adoption of a six or perhaps even four-hour workday. Combined with guaranteed education and a social safety net, this ensures that you are left with everything you could possibly want to live life to the fullest.
There are practical downsides, of course. Under anything but Anarcho-Communism you will still be tied to the (democratic) state, as it provides this welfare. And most likely, you will not bask in the absurd luxury afforded by today's ultra-rich. But in return you will gain complete freedom to improve yourself; enrich yourself as an individual. Rather than having your career and life-choices decided by what's profitable for the rich, you will finally be allowed live your life how you see fit.
Enjoy.
This isn't how you convince people, famrades!
Fuck off, Holla Forums.
Historical inevitability. The argument of Marx was premised on taking classical liberal arguments to their logical conclusion, based on the existing mode of production in his time. For you "liberal" ideas to be sustainable in the economic sphere, you need to introduce a measure of faith, and once that is taken away, only the logical conclusion of socialism follows.
Capital is not people.
1. The majority of people will have control over their own lives, not just property owners. This is why the rights conception of freedom is bullshit. Freedom is meaningless if only enjoyed by a powerful few. If we had a society where a king got to do anything he wanted but everyone else worker hard to support him this isn't a very free society even though the king has maxium "individual liberty". This analogy massively over simplifies it but I think you can get my point. Freedom is muh privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
2. It encourages a more active, educated populace that engages in discourse instead of following orders and voting every two years. People will be encouraged to take part in civic and economic decisions. This will foster more
critical thinking, and personal choice, while at the same time building community bonds and foster solidarity.
3. Capitalism is imperialistic and violent in practice. Not even a tankie but capitalism has killed far more than ML regimes, and continues to do much more every day. As we speak Yemen is getting bombed by Saudis and their western suppliers.
4. Capitalism is incredibly wasteful and damaging to the environment. It overproduces, entices unnecessary desires through consumerism, promotes wasteful industries(meat industry, auto over public transport), and destroys even the most moderate attempts at regulation.
5. Despite the right's circle jerk of "western culture" many of the best artists, writers, film makers, etc are left wing. The holy free market has been terrible for art. Just look at the anime industry.
These are just some ideas I came up with from the top of my head. The exact details and how to get to them as you may have notice are quite the topic of debate among leftist.
Check the polls. You can call it "communization" if you want - they're the same in practice. It's such a shame that illiterate smashies ruined the image of anarchism with their stupid black blocs and SJW screeching. You know who led the labor movement and got workers the 8 hours day, almost brought America to revolution in the 1920s with the IWW, and collectivized Ukraine and Spain during the Russian and Spanish civil wars? Anarchists. They had nothing to do with punks and edgy teenagers. They were the libertarian side of communism.
I would abide such a decision. Socialism is pointless if it isn't democratic, and you can't have democracy if you don't abide by majority decisions. However I wouldn't be opposed to implementing a constitution that makes it as hard to revert to capitalism as possible. Apart from enshrining socialism specifically I would also enshrine workplace democracy as well as the right to the full product of one's labour.
Imagine people democratically deciding to bring back capital just so they can make sure their boss gets the most of it.
Free markets imply a state or other institution of organized violence (gangs or warlords) to defend property and enforce debts. Read Graeber's "Debt: The First 5000 Years". It's a great book guaranteed to dispel the illusion that markets = freedom.
Kys red fascist.
Read this.
Which basic services?
Oxymoron. Capitalism can't exist without a state. The becoming of the modern nation state is interlodged with the rise of capitalism. State interventions in capitalism aren't invasive foreign elements to the capitalist mode of production, but rather inherent part of it.
Why? What inherent value does a free market have for you?
Individualism vs Collectivism is a false dichotomy. To be a fully individual, you'd have to have a maximum amount of positive freedom e.g. having the opportunity to evolve your full potential. In capitalism, this is restricted.
Why? Why should a small group of people have absolute power over the means of production and enrich themselves with it? Why do you want to toil for the welfare of feudal lords?
Because humanity can take its destiny into their own hands and isn't restricted to petty institions of arbitrary resource and wealth allocation. Pic related
Fuck off.
I dunno.. Cause you want history to move forward and not to have to got to wars in order to destroy production and keeps the system going?
A tottaly free market is the surest way to make mankind go extinct. It'll end up in monopolies anyway.
Want a link to Das Kapital the manga?
Read Stirner. It's not all about "kohloz" and "state owned factories". There is room for you ego-fags too.
They like to conveniently forget this sometimes. Defaming our ideology helps theirs grow.