Debating a capitalist

An engineer might be weak and scrawny, but if he knows math, mechanics, physics and the like he can make a nifty machine.
Another person might know how to assemble the machine and maintain it, and that is the extent of his knowledge.
A third person, who doesn't know how or why it works, or how to fix it, might have the drive and raw strength to work on it for several hours and produce something.
None of these people are equal, but all are needed. They each have their strengths and weaknesses, and leveling the playing field by imposing artificial equality results in a bad product, in a way that no one excels at anything and individual contributions lessen

Cancel it.

Postpone the debate after you learned basic theories and concepts of socialism.

This and

This.

Also, why are you kids so eager to jump into a debate? if you don't know your shit and your opponents shit back to back then don't fucking accept a debate, dammit.

Read up about various types of monopolistic practices.

DON'T fall into the not a true Scotsman/state capitalism trap that way too many internet communists fall into.

You should listen to Richard Wolff and take notes.

You may even want to absorb some of his presentation style.

You also want to skim-read "Contending Economic Theories: Neoclassical, Keynesian, and Marxian" by Richard D. Wolff and Stephen Resnick.

"A Brief History of Neoliberalism" by David Harvey would also be helpful.

When he tries to use abstract argument in defense of capitalism, bring up historical counter-arguments. Arguments based on history will be more convincing to an audience than seemingly sound abstract arguments.

You will want to clarify what socialism, communism and Marxism actually are, because there's a lot of lies and confusion.

If you have an autist memory then maybe read up critiques.us and just recite these arguments.

So…a patent is left wing now? The division of labour allows for more competition despite difference in specialization? You talk of artificial equality as if that is what one could propose, but really all you are doing is offering up a dichotomy from the artificial inequality you are in fact imposing.

It might help to know and understand what capitalism actually is and be able to clarify it for your opponents. A lot of porky apologists seem to think that capitalism is some eternal force that has existed throughout human history.

Capitalism is not the presence of money or markets. It is not the presence or money lenders or merchants. It is characterized by the domination of the Industrial Capitalist labor arrangement.

All I'm saying is if everyone leads and no one follows, or vice versa, you get bad results.
People on this board 'really' hate it when someone leads and comes off as superior (which, in their given field of expertise they are, the engineer in the example I gave is a superior mathematician and thinker, but it comes of as 'bourgeoisie' to the left, and we can't have that, so now he gets stifled and can't reach his full potential).

Well I am not an anarchist per se, and I already know as a fact most people do not want to have to lead anything in their lives.
There should be more doms in general.

Not strictly speaking doms per se, but some people are better at motivating others and being team leaders. Those are some tribal leftovers that can be seen everywhere in the natural world. and in a 100% all equal world or else you get a gun pulled on you, this falls apart and bad things happen

A true leader is a motivator. Not someone that sits in a office shouting comands.
The same applies for teachers.

There should be more switchs so I can get a qt gf who likes being dominated and strapon dping subqts with me.

You're confusing leadership and difference in ability with hierarchy created by material wealth and the state. Please read a book or at least an article.

Gee it's almost like leftists are insecure about their hability to actually debunk our claims :^)

Feadalism still exists friend

The derivative market is 15x the world GDP.
Socialism saved capitalism in 2008 when all those banks were bailed out.
That's how retarded capitalism is.

End of discussion.

Admit defeat and then introduce them to Super Capitalism.

I get that you are trying to say hierarchy is a remnant from primitive man, but I disagree when you start to imply that all hierarchy is tribal or that there is no such leadership without hierarchy. For the former I will just say that what use is it to even use the word tribal if all humans are reduced to it at the moment? What would even count for something as nontribal? For the latter, this kind of leadership is usually needs oriented and decisions are made much quicker without all the additional gates in management. It is like a net, a cross-functional and corresponsible order that delegates autonomy based on the organization that creates it.
Still, I am confused by your use of the word equality, since equality is a bourgeois notion usually approached by reformists, sold by the capitalist to mystify one's relationship to what they produce.

Now comes the paradigm shift. You will most likely agree that human rights trump everything. And that life is the most valuable thing.
Now, if an entrepreneur thinks he can make the best damn lemon flavored soft drinks, he can try to take a loan and realize his dream. If he fucks up, his entire life has effectively ended. If he wins, it pays off, and then he has to manage workers and their pay. So it's not just shouting in an office while swimming in piles of money. It's a choice some people make. Now I'm being very optimistic here and not taking exploitation into account, against that wholeheartedly.

Along with the above comment, you have to understand what average means. Average is simply where most people are, hence they are in huge supply. For ever 100 hard working and dedicated blue collar workers, you might get 2-3 guys who can build, maintain, and fix the machines, 1-2 guys who sketch up the machines, and someone who looks over and tries to make sure everyone is satisfied. And leftists really hate that last person, because they think it isn't fair that he put his lively hood on the line in an attempt to make it big. (Again, this is in the ideal position where no one is a scrooge mcduck and the workers can live normal lives).

Without any set hierarchy power gets too decentralized and becomes chaotic. To completely abolish hierarchy is to try to impose equality on everyone, i.e no one person is above or below another. This kind of average stagnation usually leads to bad results. I agree that if power is more often than not focused in one point, it will get corrupt. But decentralize it too much (if 10 000 workers own the factory, one persons vote is worth 0.01%) then things won't get done, or it will have very bad results.

Leftists do not "really hate" the poor entrepreneur that "puts it all on the line" or whatever ideology you use to justify your cuckoldry, leftists reject the system that intrinsically leads to concentration of power and exploitation by a parasitic unproductive class. Because it is this system, not the individual entrepreneur, that prevents the individual prole from realizing his potential by keeping him chained to wage slavery and exploitation. The individual can never truly thrive if he is beholden to porky for funding, if a scheming porky can steal his work or destroy him, or if to survive he must be exploited. As such it is in the individual's interest to reject such a system and embrace one that allows him a better material condition to realize his full potential. This means that interest of the proletariat is at odds with thay of the bourgeoisie who benefit from the system that damages the proletariat, and as such their will be conflict between the classes.

Now grow a pair of balls and act like a man you impotent cuck, else we will show you no more mercy than the porky you gleefully let fuck your ass.

...

Don't use morality to defend your position. In spite of all the Stirner memes and the fact that Marx ridiculed abstract notions of justice most communists still use words like "right," "wrong," "evil," and "unfair" when defending their philosophy. Just fucking don't do it. Morality is the idea that holds class society together, nothing could possibly more useful to you than dismantling it.

Don't pretend words have objective meanings. If they call Nazi Germany socialist just roll with it as long as you point out their definition is completely subjective. Most of the "debate" you'll see from the clowns here is just them trying to convince people what the words socialism and communism "really" mean, don't fall into that trap please.

Honestly the most important shit you should read up on are the holy texts of those laissez-faire weenies. Try to at least acquaint yourself with Böhm-Bawerk or Mises in some way. Even if you don't have the time to read all their work thoroughly surely you could at least find a way to grasp the basics of their work and the communist criticisms of it.

I know you're nervous but it's very important that you sound confident, clear, and press them hard if they falter even a bit. If you find yourself checked just try to shrug it off with a "fair enough" and hit them back quickly. If you find yourself on the defensive most of the time then you've already failed. Of course you're their to defend communism, but attacking capitalism will help you much more. Hit them as often and powerfully as possible.

...

On the contrary, to establish hierarchy is to impose exactly that kind of equality I was talking about: ergo, the top of the hierarchy is equal to all the people, he has power and control equally over aspects of the lower class, the lower class becomes equally citizens only under a top, and for the people minus the top the rest is symptomatic inequality, compared to the leader, compared to each other, unable to see/speak through the kind of mystification that goes "oh we are all in this together, really I am human," in order not to upset others in their lower place or upset the top who also rejoins in this game and so on and so forth. It is this moment that is real madness, real chaos, for it is not just these lower classes that imagine themselves with the ability to do the same as the top, but it is the top that thinks of themselves as being the top in-themselves, and not having derived from a mandate of equality, nor from a completed envisioning of symbolic order qua the power and the elect of the people (it is also that strong charismatic leader is strictly correlative to this low-level, elementary self-awakening of the people; when you want revolt, restructuring of the political environs, or whatever, you need leaders and collective action together). This maldistribution of hierarchy cannot reflect a conceivable measure of unshared justice for its ascension is characterized by monopolies and oligopolies, collusion, bought political influence and cronyism, some of it criminal even under our, by which I mean American's, extremely lax laws and regulations; so, this system is just as artificial as the one you are claiming to be hypothetically "equalized," not merely being just perpetuated, but also reinforced through the very categories that extend it and widen the disparity between leader and peoples.

OP gonna get Xexizy'd lel, if you dont know theory try to just make critiques of capitalism
Use a marksoc, anarkiddie position, because you prob will fail if you go full tankie

Use Wolff arguments, and if the cappie starts talking about Venezuela remind him you dont support state control of the MOPs

Also read parenti if yuou want to reply to arguments about the USSR

That is why you go a little bit of anacap and don't let companies impose shit that stifles growth of smaller companies.

Just fucking Google communist theory and communist critiques to capitalism. It's 20-fucking-16, every argument anyone on Holla Forums can field you has already been documented somewhere online… usually many many times over.

Keep on the attack.

Tell him a libertarian capitalist state is a contradiction in terms. It is impossible to have a state that protects private property without that state robbing you of your taxes. Remember your crowd is normies not channers. If he goes full an cap they are gonna think hes a retard.

Also keep asking him to provide you with historical examples of successful right Libertarianism.

Also it would help greatly if we knew what brand of leftist you are

???

This makes no sense. The large corporations that swallow the smaller ones come about because of risk-pooling and are the natural result of a market economy with private ownership.

I never said that. I said you make it so bigger companies can't bribe the government to pass laws in favor of them. The companies that have a stake in the govt are those worldwide brands who would crush competition instead of letting their products be judge on an equal playing field, where the market demands dictates who goes and who stays.

Example : I want to open a candy bar factory. It will make candy bars with pineapple flavor. There are enough people who want pineapple flavored candy that I can support my brand. Those people who bought my candy might have bought something from Nestle or any other big company. So then Nestle pays the govt to pass laws where I have to pass so many loopholes that I end up bankrupt. This is a problem because you no longer vote with your money, competition is obliterated and the consumer suffers in the end result.

They do so to stay afloat. It's basically the govt passing laws that kill competition or if push comes to shove, get bailed out out with taxpayer money. Which is, again, not voting with your money and is an example why cronyism is bad

Short answer would be term limits. Like when making a soup : If you don't stir it up every now and then, scum will build up on top. People by they're very nature can become corrupt (everyone has a price) and it's important to mandate who governs over you.

I understood that, the problem is that is not anarcho capitalism at all, its more of syndicalism or market socialism

You need to focus on trickle down economics. Ask him why we have not seen a huge recovery in Britain after the 2007 financial crash despite implementing austerity programs.

Tell him that this crash was caused by deregulation under Clinton, Bush and Blair.

Tell him this year the American election was a choice between two candidates nobody wanted. Both of those choices were capitalists. Hillary being bought out by the banks, politics being about money, is an inevitable part of capitalism. Donald Trump shows that the only way you can beat the established candidate is to be worth almost four billion dollars. You have to be the establishment. This is capitalism. Normal people will never ever have a say.

You need to hit and hit hard. Prepare yourself. Prepare as many facts with sources as possible. idenitify common arguments against socialism and then come up with point by point responses. Keep these all on flash cards.

maybe we could help you

Check out this thread
Read ha joon Chang's secret history of capitalism. Quote and cite it in the debate. You will convince people, I guarantee it.

Prepare for the das mudpie argument if you bring up Marxism. Also, if you don't understand Marx yet, watch this.

youtu.be/dGT-hygPqUM?list=PL3F695D99C91FC6F7

They're probably going to say Socialist just want to steal your private property. Make sure you know how to counter that. I'm guessing they're going to try to moralize and say that socialist want to steal everything. Don't take the bait.

In the debate it's almost certain that you'll get into a debate about is the Labor Theory of Value. At the very least you should know the "meme" arguments (i.e. "Muh risk," "Muh crappy product that took two years to make," etc.) and how the LTV works.

This is a nice quick resource for debunking the common arguments:

marxist.com/in-defence-of-ltv.htm

Still, if you have time I would research into it a bit more.

PS: Does anyone have that paper that mathematically/statistically studied the LTV? That would be a goot resource as well considering most lolberts are STEM fags.

Don't stoop to the low blows either– even if they're easy to debunk they'll just make you look weak.

Die Macht der Muschi!

That's what democracy is for you silly willy

Its better to go on the offensive and explain how capitalism sucks then how socialism is soo good. If you really want to make their heads bust open though, point out how Murica is already socialist.

There are better methods than democracy that can get you to charged, and fierce premier!

There's no empirical evidence of LTV just as there is no evidence of marginalism being true. If you're looking for such a thing you're already doomed as far as a debate about economics is concerned. There is empirical evidence of falling rate of profit though, which is what Marx used LTV to predict.

Like others in this thread have said OP, you should drop out of this debate. If you aren't already prepared for one you will lose. People here aren't going to be able to help you, and barely understand theory enough to win themselves. Even having Badiou or RDW whispering in your ear, you can't become le master debater overnight, sorry.

youtube.com/watch?v=dGT-hygPqUM

youtube.com/watch?v=-RRa0lkhy4E

youtube.com/channel/UCPSFjkA3jc_U2mdcSLb4bhQ

Watch all this shit. WATCH IT ALL. TAKE NOTES.

See but this is trash. We're fine with following good leaders, but that doesn't necessitate the wage system, private ownership etc. If someone proves to be a good leader, people will follow without being forced to.

We don't mind competition. We mind capitalism.

if OP hasn't read Kapital, it's best not to use the LVT in his argument. Rather hard to defend just by watching a youtube series.

Apologies, I didn't exactly mean that a paper flat out proving the LTV to be true, but the papers that demonstrate that the LTV is effective at predicting relative value ie not a rigorous proof.

Something like this:

no.

(checked)
Do not show emotions during the debate, try to get the main memes (socialism is taxes, socialism is welfare, etc…) out of the way quickly and talk about worker's ownership and exploitation. Frame capitalism as a leech-allowing system and attack the legitimacy of private property.

Good luck, tell us how it went in this thread.

OP if you haven't read about marxism DON'T BRING UP THE LVT. I DON'T CARE HOW MANY FAGGOTS POST THE KAPITALISM101 CHANNEL ON HERE. YOU WILL HAVE A SHITTON OF TROUBLE USING THE LVT IF YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND IT.

Perhaps the best question to ask at this point is what are you familiar with. I can understand your anxiety, but surely you have some areas in which you are particularly knowledgeable. Be on the attack with those.

I'll give you some possible areas of study. the first two are the most important cause they will almost definitely bring em up:

More than likely what they will bring up are the failures of past cold-war-era regimes. Do your best to distance yourself from those. good hint: don't say "they weren't socialist" because that's a meme at this point. You can explain that they were working toward a specific end goal of a stateless, classless society and you believe that they failed at a certain point at progressing toward that goal somehow (that bit will depend on whatever tendency you follow for example councilists might say lenin was well-intentioned, but his policies led to the clusterfuck of stalinism).

Some may bring up the calculation problem. Here's a short thing on that (facebook.com/notes/adam-watson/debunking-the-economic-calculation-myth/10152236523489741)

They may bring up some "basic economics." I'm not a fan of short videos as a means of learning about an entire discipline, but your situation may warrant it as a short-term measure. Keen's video on shit arguments in economics is pretty good (youtube.com/watch?v=h4VekPtXveE&t=3144s). Rebel also has a vid on Austrian economics.

Remember that "Libertarian Capitalism" is a contradiction in terms. Not only does capitalism require a state to enforce private property but the individual's decisions are dictated by the market and their bosses in even the best-case scenario. The fact that your being told what to do by men in suits rather than men in uniform doesn't make it any more "voluntary."

Go after him on automation and if he hits you with some UBI shit (a lot of lolberts will) then be sure you've read some articles like this (ftm.nl/artikelen/waarom-neoliberalen-dol-zijn-op-het-basisinkomen) on it.

Read up a little bit on negative externalities. Essentially when an individual consumer or producer's actions have a negative affect on the community, it's not necessarily going to be included in the price. So according to bourgie economics, the price will not lead to a socially-efficient equilibrium. Fracking, for example does not affect just the producer and the consumer, but also the communities near the project. But that is not factored into price unless you have completely free and constant negotiation (impossible in practice). As a result fracking continues at a level above that which is socially efficient. Externalities basically necessitate government intervention in order to achieve a socially efficient equilibrium.

Also keep in mind that the majority of markets are not perfectly competitive, nor could they ever be. The lolbertarian dream of perfect competition only remotely works in markets such as commodities. Homogeneity, market size, increasing returns to scale (another great topic, look it up), all render perfect competition impossible in most cases.

to clarify on automation, here's grey: youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

Good vibes and love to you OP.

Also answer yourself the question of how long do you have until the debate?

And pace yourself from there.

I thought guns were banned in socialist countries

So you're alright with living in a commune with any random folk because it's equal? Giving up your valued belongings and being average wit h the bare necessities?

Read a fucking book.

Islamposter makes a good point.

OP, you need to go on the offensive as often as possible.

Debating as a socialist is like being a glass cannon. You can make many effective criticisms about capitalism, but you're always ending up on the defensive because of the vasts amount of bullshit circulating about the Left.

Go full UURAH charge.

Maybe you can practice on this guy lel.

f u leddypol

...

did I say any of that? I'm not sure I see your point here. If everyone would be living in shit conditions under communism, would it not follow that most people are living under even shittier conditions under capitalism?

This guy is meme-tier. OP you better hope that whoever you're up against is like the fucks who come here to b8. It just gets worse every month.

Not OP but I already have that book saved and Imma get to it soon. There's some other words of wisdom ITT. we're just worried cause of the muke incident.

If you're really worried, just cancel. If you think you can take him, fine, just study up.

You'll be great OP

you are opposed to private ownership. State owns everything, right?

Oh really? I guess that's why all those communist countries let civilians own firearms :^)

Not OP, but I'm guessing this automation basically require fully automated luxury communism doesn't it? Another thing is, won't resources become more scare due to climate change as well? Wouldn't this render automation moot?

op chill, watch richard wolff videos and the related videos that pops up on youtube and take notes while watching them. try to be result oriented. this is pretty shallow approach but it works if your don't have much time. I have never seen a ayncrap/lolbertarian who has read his history, ideology throughly and thought about it. This is what they do, they only read stuff that is "argument" related. They are only interested in information that can be used against their enemies. So this is what you should do too. Read their websites, watch their videos and find their most used arguments. and find answers tho those arguments before you go debate. I feel really bad for suggesting this disgusting method but this is the only way. ofc if you don't have much time. if you have some time to read 3-4 books, definitely read books and take notes as and ask them to your professors first and they post them here. good luck.

careful with that. most lolberts don't know that leftists make a distinction between private and personal property.

gee golly what a meme. New here aren't ya?

Yes. The point is automation poses a major problem for capitalism. If you watch the vid you'll understand why. In short a lot of jobs are gonna be automated. There will be a shortage of jobs most likely.

Another thing is, won't resources become more scare due to climate change as well? Wouldn't this render automation moot?

This is actually an important point that a lot of leftists fail to keep in mind. We will be facing some significant environmental issues in the near future. Capitalism offers no solution to the crisis, and in all likelyhood speeds the process along. Primitivism is a meme and requires us to kill off the majority of the population. I haven't done enough research on green-lefty shit to really give you a straight answer on the environmental problem but I've heard Bookchin has some good stuff on that.

Sometimes I feel like people on this board use FALC as a cop-out. Re-enacting star-trek irl is generally impractical. Automation is to an extent necessary, but we will have to think carefully about making sure innovation is sustainable.

to the extent that they don't follow a communist program, they aren't communists. To the extent that they limit workers' access to arms, pro-gun lefties do not stand by their actions. Karl Marx was a staunch supporter of gun ownership, anarchists generally aren't big on the state taking away the power of the masses so most lefties will be very pro-gun. The only groups who I could generally imagine would be against gun ownership would be some tankies and most pacifists.

If you were against exploitation you would be against capitalism, but my guess is you don't really know what that word means.

No true scotsman, got'cha

Most leftists are frankly, from what I've seen with my time spent here, a bit delusional
That is where I kek and lift my hands in defeat. Truly you people here are the paragons of intellect and I feel drastically enlightened. I shall now recede for my meager gray matter cannot handle such truths that have been bestowed in this thread.

Different fields, different pay. A factory worker will never earn as much as the guy who owns the factory because if he could he'd start his own factory.

Good luck with your debate OP, be sure to post the video on this board when it's uploaded

Not a single argument was found this day.

is this b8? You realize pretending to be retarded is the same thing as retardation. Ironic autism is still autism my dude. I never said these people weren't communists (I couldn't really as you gave no examples).

That is where I kek and lift my hands in defeat. Truly you people here are the paragons of intellect and I feel drastically enlightened. I shall now recede for my meager gray matter cannot handle such truths that have been bestowed in this thread.

lurk.moar.fagget.

That's beside the point. Read Kapital 2bh.

With any luck the lolbert will be exactly like you. B8 on this board has become indistinguishable from general newfaggotry. Lolberts are a parody of themselves.

Explain to me how private =/= personal before I leave. This is the only thing that is puzzling me.

You already fucked it.

Private: something typically used to make profit off of, usually by hiring workers, like a factory.

Personal: Your stuff that you bought or made for personal use. Also, private property is enforced/protected by the state. Whoops. :^)

What about private being means of production and personal being non-MOP.

So it's alright for someone to own his PERSONAL house and rent it out :^D ?

No.

HAHAHAHHA holy shit i will screenshot this and make sure it gets out when the video gets uploaded. good luck you stupid fucker

Not the guy you're replying to but I'll give this the best rundown I can (read capital btw)

Private property in the Marxist sense is the tools/machines the capitalist uses to make products, ie the means of production.

Personal property is

The distinction is not general. They're just two types of property. It's a terminology sort of thing.

Private applies generally to means of production. It is ownership not for personal use but to use as leverage in order to gain social power.

Personal property is ownership for personal use. These are products of production and as a general rule you can carry them on your person but that's not always the case.

It's not an easy line to draw in all cases, but that's the gist of it. Generally private property requires enforcement. Personal property doesn't really.

Clearly not.

would be hard to rent in a moneyless society where everyone is housed. Rents don't grow out of the ground, my dude. They are a product of our system.

next time keep your autism online. ive been there, i know how it feels. soon enough you'll see how absolutely retarded you are.

How would you acquire said items in a moneyless society?

iktf comrade.

If you mean rented it seems to imply theres a landlord, who is actually the one who 'owns' it, and in order to make a profit, does as little as possible to fix the home s/he 'owns'. It's a scam.

Kinda what I meant, and that's what capitalism is, not simply people trading stuff. That would be closer to merchantism.

I agree, since this shit is so dire. The only thing I can see that might grant our survival is to become robots or some shit.

When you start charging rent for your house you convert your house from personal property to private property.

Labour vouchers, or just general distribution based on use value.

Oh, so kind of like money?

...

No, labour vouchers are non-accumulative. One time use to represent a certain quantum of labour.

making them yourself? getting them from someone who makes them? Communists generally want to move past quid-pro-quo exchange. Goods can be distributed by local councils or a central administrative body or both. Every sect will give you a different answer on specifics.

There are some commies who will use adapted forms of currency like labor vouchers just because it's simpler. These work differently from our modern system though. Many are against voucher systems tho.

...

to be fair to our normie friends here, there is considerable debate within lefty circles about whether or not labor vouchers are functionally money. I'm generally suspicious of the concept of labor vouchers though I understand that they serve a practical purpose in organization and may prove necessary.

So it's like money that's burned after every use

The first one is basically currency, and would be useless in a post-scarcity society. Rub eyeballs on papers please.

to play devil's advocate here, as I generally understand it, this currency could function in accordance with Marx's concept of "value" rather than "exchange value." In Gotha Marx did advocate for labor vouchers based on labor time at least until a higher phase of communism could be reached for organizational purposes.

Care to elaborate o'wise one?

I never specified post-scarcity, I suppose you think we can't have a planned economy till we have mechanical doctors.

I also never denied it was "currency", it doesn't function the same way money does. You can't win labour vouchers in the lottery, you can't make labour vouchers by betting on the stock market. You can't steal labour vouchers (assuming the labour vouchers are given out have the labourer's name on them), I think these are pretty important distinctions between labour vouchers and money, a planned economy is presupposed before the introduction of labour vouchers.

Its nice to talk about "post-scacity" economies, but it's a utopian concept right now.

Also you'd have to define what you mean by "post-scarcity" cause I've heard various people define it in different ways. Just having a sheer abundance of everything and becoming a sci-fi-esque singularity society might not be such a practical goal given environmental concerns.

Organizing a moneyless society will be difficult and there will most likely be organizational challenges early on. If possible it would be worth moving beyond vouchers but there will be difficulties.

Unfortunately, it is…

I wouldn't be surprised myself. The best I could think of is full automation with some teaks, and even eventually cybernetics to survive a climate holocaust.

I understand what you mean about labor vouchers though. I'm against the idea in principle. I hope we can move past money. As I understand we do produce more than enough in terms of necessaries for life and some luxury goods.

I generally think that it's a matter of getting people to stop thinking in terms of exchange. Property could be shared in the same way a family shares possessions. Certain things are always understood as being held in common. Other things are generally understood as personal but when a neighbor is in need personal property can be shared. A farmer takes what they need to eat of the harvest and sends along the rest to be distributed by local councils. etc.

It's difficult to work out and maybe there will be some problems along the way. But that's my hope.

I disagree. Economic calculation is a reflection of consumer trends, we will get to the point where we can use computation for markets based on consumption trends before we get to the point where we have mechanical everything. Prices leave out a lot of information, like why consumers may choose to pay more money for a product with similar build quality if its more environmentally friendly. They signal a shift in the demand curve, or a current Qd but not why the shift took place. That's not to say I'm opposed to market socialism, in fact I support it as a method of transition. But I don't think the line between "planned" and "mixed" is as absolute as it's made out to be.

so do you see vouchers as a long-term solution? At what point would you think we could organize a society without vouchers?

I was agreeing that post scarcity seems to be a utopia not, actually.

Like Skullfriend specified, when we have a "post scarcity" economy. Labour vouchers are a short term solution for the initial transition into a planned economy, but I prefer to explain socialism in terms of whats realistic in my lifetime.

I think that's widely dependant on the country. Care to explain?

To be honest, I'm not even sure. I can say for certain the internet seems like one, since files can be copied and shared ad infinitum

sorry what? what's the problem here? how does it apply to real life?

also have lolberts left? I was hoping they'd stick around and learn a bit.

Only because trips.

Best advice I'd give for debates:

1) Know your philosophy
2) Know your opponent's philosophy

I could tell you what arguments I'd make and what philosophy I believe, but really it's more important that you know your positions and can think on your feet.

If you have the time, read major libertarian works and make counter arguments against their arguments. If you understand the basics of their thought you're less likely to be blindsided and end up in a panic. Also, my experience is that if you read a few libertarian works you generally know more about it than the majority of libertarians.

The Von Mises library is a utter cancer and great, free resource for libertarian philosophy/ Austrian economics.

There is no royal road to knowledge. There is no replacement for actually knowing what you're talking about.

Also, if you fuck up don't worry. Do better on the next question/topic. If you completely fuck up, do better next time.

t. argumentative bastard

He never called the Libertarian he plans to debate a capitalist.
Maybe read the post first.

Maybe read the title

I concede. However, we're arguing semantics. The libertarian is a supporter of, and thus on the side of capitalism. Maybe Franz isn't an architect of the Reich, but he supports their politics and willingly joined the army.

autism

By your logic something can never not be part of a category as long as it defines itself as such - even if it possesses none of the defining features of said categorisation.

love him

Nice dubs, but your post is devoid of content.