Thoughts on Anarchist Social Democracy?

wew lad

The rose is also on fire, symbolizing the inevitable failure of social democracy.

Gb2 >>>Holla Forums pirateposter, you're not needed when bots are already shitting up our board enough.

I don't sail in those waters my friend

How is ancom not real anarchism? let's hear it. This oughta be good.

fuck, I love pirateposter shitposting

there is no such thing as "real", embrace ontological nihlism

as for how ancoms are not anarchism, it is simple, illogical disregard for markets and an enforced centrally planned system that actually is just a less efficient market

You're hilarious.
In other words, "it's not real anarchism because it's ancapism, which is totally real anarchism u guiz"

I think we're done here.

*because it's not

what the actual fuck are you arguing about dumb dumb

Explain me why isn't Anarchism.

...

RIP my brain :(

Not a fan. The rich get better protection of their property than the poor, and you have that bit with the caught criminal paying the agency (which had to pay the victim beforehand). Well, what if the criminal doesn't have money? The person gets punished in a different way, then. Free-market models have as one as their key aspects that property rights themselves are guaranteed whether you have a tiny bit of wealth or a lot. (Hernando De Soto Polar has apparently written quite a bit about that issue.) Privatizing property protection itself makes society more hierarchical than what you would believe just by looking at the distribution of money. I don't care whether you got some proposal like that from well-respected free-market philosophers. (Well-respected by whom? Certainly not me.) The proposal looks muddle-headed to me. As it stands there, disrespecting the property of another person can be easy or hard based on the relative wealth of the two people in question. What is the effect of this, over time?

Good stuff. I'd add a frontage tax to it. That is, a tax based on how much pavement and street is right around your piece of land.

Not a fan. Looks like an incentive for all sorts of fake behavior: faking yourself to be poorer than you are, having poorer relatives buy things for you.

So, two brothers shifting money back and forth between them breaks this? I think this is an embryo of a good idea, but it surely requires a bit more thought.

Only read the first ten pages so far, will read the rest tomorrow.

Generally markets seem like a fucken meme, competition means you haven't set things up so that everyone's satisfied so it relies on a certain lack to exist.

As for the OP, literal Deviantart tier autism that OP also posted on halfchan /lit/ I think.

Anarcho-Communism is not centrally planned.

Doesn't social democracy require a state? How do you have business regulation and social services without a state?

Read the essay.

TOPKEK

Do you really believe it's a good rule of thumb to say that your production costs per unit go up when you produce more? Marginalist economics as some general principle is very unrealistic and is chosen for teaching because of its political implications.

(…)
Well. As you know, strictly speaking, there is a bit put aside for people who are too young or too old to work, or ill or disabled, and you need some buffer because of bad weather ruining crops and the like. So, I'd rather put at this way: In socialism, there is no difference in individual incomes from passive ownership of land, means of production, patents. There can be some differences in income, but your entitlement to consumption comes from your work and needs-based regulations.

I wouldn't put Marx in a group of people who said that individuals should get stuff according to their individual contribution. He makes the point about making some deductions like I made above in Critique of the Gotha Program. Another reason is that he surely had the view that production is something done by huge groups of mutually dependent humans (most of them not even knowing each other), and there is something arbitrary about trying to assign achievement percentages among the people.

I'd rather say, it became more social, a shift from small groups to bigger ones, more task divisions.

>Proudhon observed that there is a certain kind of surplus value created through social labor that goes beyond simply adding the labor power of each new worker.
Yes, and when a boss hires some more workers on top of that, so that the marginal productivity stops rising and falls, he can pay every individual according to marginal product and still make a profit. He does not need to exploit them as individuals to exploit them as a group. He can even hire a bit more still so that he makes a loss paying the last marginal wage, and then go to each individual worker and say, without lying: "All else equal, I would be better off firing you, pal!" Still, the group of workers is making him a profit. Proudhon knew that, so I would rather say that marginalist economics needs and update in the light of Proudhon.

You say you are for money and markets, but I am not sure what you mean by these terms. Would you call what is proposed in Towards a New Socialism (ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/) a system with money and markets?

I don't understand the anarchist boner for any-time recall. Recall is a lot of work, and it doesn't really gel with proportional voting systems, unless you drop anonymous ballots and go with electronic public voting. Do you want that? If you don't care about proportional multi-seat elections, a workable way for having recall can be that delegates are regularly reviewed and interviewed by randomly-selected juries, and these juries can trigger a recall election.

Or instead of the recall option, you could just have elections at higher frequency. Juries could judge elected people and be able to give out temporary bans against running again as a candidate.

Why do you want recall? Because of bad decisions. Why not go after the bad decisions directly? That's why I prefer that decisions of the elected have to pass trough a sortition-selected chamber to get enacted. This also works with proportional elections.

Your definition of voluntary as including payment for your body occupying space is the kind of sophistry that you easily recognize as such when other authors are doing it. I agree with you that the LVT is less arbitrary than other taxes though.

It's garbage, obviously.

The sources for the text are all over the place, Marx, Catholic Distributionists, Hayek, and more. Ideologists of every stripe will surely regard some of these people as haram. I think being mad at someone for reading things is pretty silly. That said, the text doesn't seem to be entirely coherent, so the superficial negative reaction wasn't misplaced here. If there is some criterion for inclusion other than "let's take bits from everything I've ever read" I don't know what that criterion is.

In one part it's about how people deserve what they produce (hence the land-value tax), in another part progressive income taxation is mentioned positively. These ideas look like there are at odds. Given that rentier income is a huge part of the income of the very rich, it likely is somewhat progressive and you do not contradict yourself if you say
But the text seems to be about having both rentier income taxed away AND having a progressive income tax on the rest. But the rest is earned in a just way by your standard, so…