Hi, I'm a libertarian and I have a couple of questions about the whole leftist spectrum

also, something very important, is our definition of 'property'

most socialists follow a Proudhonian definition of property, so neither your tootbrush, vegetable garden, microbrewery, toolkit or solar panels on your roof will be seized.

he used to be mutualist though

I assume you are talking about primitive communism, but the ideas of self ownership and private property have existed since forever.

The original Enlightenment people were called "liberals" here in the Europe, but their ideas have evolved in both the neo-liberalism and libertarianism. Neither of them can be compared to the original thing, but they both share roots in the original ideology. Secularism, anti-authoritarianism, self-ownership, freedom of choosing your labor and so on and so forth.
In my opinion the neo-liberals have corrupted the word "liberty", associating them with ideas like "the freedom for healthcare", "the freedom to own a limousine" etc. Of course you have the freedom to get both of them, but it doesn't mean other people should be forced to pay for them, but that's besides the point.

Interesting, that is actually a good way of managing a democracy.
Again, the primitive communism argument. Sure, I'm not going into that any more than I need to because my question wasn't about what might happen to the society after 100 years of leftist rule, it was about what will happen to us, who think differently.

On what they own, yes. Stealing is a completely different thing.

I know and that is one of the issues here.

Morality is not objective, man makes its morals based on the conditions he lives, in socialism even yourself will quit your morals
venture capitalism/entrepreneurship is not a job and will dissapear undersocialism.
If you get a real job then yes you will keep the fruits of your labor because socialism seeks to end alienation from one's own labor
and practicing free trade?
Why will you need to trade?
If not, what would happen to dissidents and should we, with different ideas, look at leftism as a natural enemy to our kind?
Helicopter rides, you lolberst seem to like those
What do you mean with this? If you're suggesting that a communist society can coexist with a socialist one you're completely wrong, capitalism needs infinite expansion and a socialist society next door is an obstacle for said growth.

Also, with the original question, are we just two "opposing" set of morals and ideas that could never work together?

Stop forcing this meme

Confusing, tbh. You are essentially saying that philosophers "conjure up" ideas, removed somehow from the rest of their respective societies and from history, while "right wing ideas" evolve "naturally".

Every philosopher man is a product of his time, there are no exceptions. Even Marx held views that were common sense in his time, and some of these we view as outdated.

Philosophy is not magic. It doesn't "conjure up" anything, because it is impossible. It works on, reflects upon, intervenes in the historically given doxa, science, art, etc.

On the "natural" part: this is silly as well. You either classify all human thought natural or unnatural, but making exceptions leads to category errors.

Not all. Most Marxisms are explicitly amoral. Don't misinterpret it as "evil." It's amoral as in physics is amoral, or as bookbinding is amoral.

You present here a series that are a product of a long historical development, very western specific (try to explain "self-ownership" to a tribe living in a jungle) and prone to exceptions even here.

For instance, "self-ownership" is a very anglo concept and you hardly find people talking about themselves in these terms before classical liberalism was born. It's also a very ideological term: it tries to sneak in the same kind of relationship an owner (of a factory, for instance) has with his workers into how he relates to himself, which is impossible for multiple reasons. In philosophy "self-ownership" is ridiculed in the continental tradition.

cowardly

Be more specific. A mutualist would, a Marxist wouldn't, because we want to abolish the market (for multiple reasons).

Again, be more specific. What if someone doesn't like common ownership, cooperative farming, etc.? Nothing. He may speak up. What if somebody tries to steal from the commons, with force? He'll be reprehended.

No it doesn't. They conflict on property.

We are talking, aren't we?

First off it's important to understand that almost no leftist actually understands Marx. It's a mystery why that is, the man was very clear in his analysis, but here we are with a history of failed revolutions and a majority of people who see themselves as either tankies or anarchists. In this vain I would argue that most leftists would not allow you to keep the fruits of your labor and so on, as they follow ideologies which seek to impose an ideal onto society.

However if you were to ask me whether real communism^TM would allow for it, I would have to answer "yes, somewhat". Marx in his development of communist society saw the very same values as the ideal that humanity has been longing for with the capitalist revolution already (freedom of the individual and so on), but failed to attain and through historical materialism he developed why they failed and what must happen for us humans not to fail any longer. The answer to this is that the material conditions of our time must allow for communist society to develop, or rather that communist society will naturally develop outgoing from the material conditions of its time, as every society is determined by its material reality.
Communism most certainly would allow the individual free development and expression of itself and by abolishing private property it is ensured that every individual is entitled to the fruits of their labor. Free trade however as you imagine it will simply not be able to exist in communist society as the law of value has ceased to operate, it is an irrational idea.

In real communism^TM I guess no one would care about dissidents for they would hold irrational notions that are incompatible with the material reality of the time, which would dictate an economy that operates based on use value. To explain this with an example taken to its logical extreme, imagine a society in which everything you would want could be created with the touch of a button: the notion of someone wanting to trade anything that is able to be created in such a way in order to make a profit is irrational.

Private property is not an idea, it is a concrete and violent relationship between people.

...

Exactly, that is why I'm a libertarian.
Actually, it is. Providing products and assets to people who need them is a job. So is investing, loaning money to people so they can pursuit their ideas.
Rotschild-tier banking is not a real job though.
So, when the capitalists come to buy your farm to build their gizmo factory you are not allowed to say no? You are thinking of the government here.

First of all to the whole philosophical progression, yes: Marxism was a reactionary idea created to oppose the mindset of the industrial age, sure, it had its base on postmodernism, which evolved naturally, but it was an idea to completely change the whole world to the better.
Correct, but there is a difference between rationalizing the whole social system from scratch and building of top of the old ideas.
Indeed, this is the soul of postmodernism, but if there is no evil, there is no reason to demonize capitalism. By doing so, you are proving that you have morals and values, most of which you share with others in the leftist spectrum.
Yes, I don't claim that everyone follows a said set on philosophical thought and as you said:
It evolved naturally throught social progress. Sure, there might be people who claim that there is no such thing as self ownership, but I wouldn't want to be a slave because someone else thinks that way.
We are birds of a different flock.
Can they speak up before their property has been stolen from them or after?
Of course, that's how our western values evolved. plsdon'tbully
You buy land the size of Estonia and start your communist utopia there, what is wrong with this?
Sure, but I don't get the point of spamming Holla Forums. I just want to read my news.

Great post, thanks!
However:
The law of value exists always, because human beings have different preferences. Sure, trying to sell your goods in a market where everything is free would fail miserably because of supply and demand, but trading your toothbrush for an apple innawoods or some other speculative tightspot would work.

Well, let me be more precise. In the transitional stage of socialism, use value will be the dominant economic force, distributing the goods which are available at post-scarcity levels, however the law of value will still operate in every market outside of it, be it black markets or alternative markets. If we were to assume communist utopia however where the human development was taken to its extreme the law of value was to disappear entirely in that everything was available at post-scarcity levels.

That's a load of crap OP. Communism isn't incompatible with self ownership or individualism in principle, rather it seas private property and capitalism as system that crushes the indivudal and deprives them of their freedom and agency. As Marx writes "In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality." For a large portion of Western history private property was concentrated in the hands of a hereditary noble elite, the vast majority of the population had no property, and couldn't even remove themselves from serf status. Private property and capitalism are not the basis of western society, on the contrary they are quite recent developments.

Morals? Sure, just don't impose them on others. Fruits of your labour? That's the entire point. Capitalism does not allow the worker to keep the fruits of their labour. Rather it compels workers to give up what they produce to a class of people that can barely even be said to shuffle paper around, and do not create wealth by any stretch of the imagination. Free trade? Depends on who you ask. Some leftists (marksocs, murialists) would be okay with markets. I personally wouldn't, but unlike most I wouldn't outlaw them, just implement a non-transferable currency system that renders markets unviable. So no, you wouldn't be able to engage in free trade, but not because muh ebil gubmint won't let you, but because there would be no currency as it exists today. Also realistically you don't have that freedom of trade now. 80% of all businesses fail and that number typically goes up as capitalism matures, since you get the development of oligopoly and trusts.

True, and I think so too. I am a supporter of the NAP because of my ethics, but I am only a supporter of the free market because we are not yet at the point where machines make everything for us. At the moment, capitalism is our best system but we need to trim all the crony capitalism out of it.

And yet the biggest experiment close to anarcho-communism in the form of the Israeli Kibbutz naturally formed its own currencies and decollectivized in its future generations. So much for that pipe dream.

Any serious attempt at communism would have to be from non-human species built for collective purposes, like AI, and hence just a glorified slave system for us.

Also this is horse shit, since no capitalist society would allow a successful communist one to exist right under its nose. If this were to happen then they capitalist elites would be threatened and would crush any fledgling communist society. Your NAP doesn't stop naked self interest.

Ideas aren't really "created." You are still echoing the conspiratard interpretation of ideologies. In what sense do you think Marxism opposed the industrial age? You seem to confuse ludditism with Marxism. Marxists don't "oppose" the existence of factories, modern production, but they want to reconfigure the production process itself. Big difference.

Completely anachronistic. Postmodernism is late 20th century, Marx lived 1818-1883. Define for us "postmodernism" and your understanding of its relationship to Marxism, lad.

What do you mean by this? Explain to us how Marx views history in your understanding.

You completely misunderstood as expected. Fucking amoral physics, man! Physics is pure postmodernism, man!

Pure ideology.

We obviously disagree on property. For us property is theft from the commons.

We are not Utopian Socialists (google it).

It's not about demonizing capitalism. The proletariat will negate class relations because it's within their self interest. It's not a moral issue.

You might want to look into left-accelerationism.

criticallegalthinking.com/2013/05/14/accelerate-manifesto-for-an-accelerationist-politics/

It seeks to "press "the process of technological evolution" beyond the constrictive horizon of capitalism, for example by repurposing modern technology for socially beneficial and emancipatory ends" and personally I am in agreement with that idea. Supporting the free market makes no sense to me as I see the results of letting it reign free as reactionary and destructive and would rather see a constructive approach to our economic development.

Good
people will get the products and assets themselves if investing capital wasn't accumulated in the hands of the bourgeois, in socialism everybody could be an entrepeneur because everybody will have the means to
A 'capitalist goverment defending capitalist interests. In capitalism the state exists solely to defend the interests of the wealthiest.

Read a fucking book. You don't even know the definitions of the words you use.

And to which I say too, a load of crap, because private property is right. This issue is not about the philosophy of private property, as

pointed out but rather a moral difference on what we think is right.
You are contradicting yourself. Sure, most of the property were in the hands of the nobles but by the industrial revolution the investing began. Capitalism and private property are indeed the basis for the current western society.
For the whole western society, we have to look even more back in the history and that is true.
It does and everyone has their own part in the system.
You have a very interesting idea of free trade. Even if 100% of the market would be owned by some entity, you would still be able to work on your own. Even if 100% of the land and resources would be owned by such entity, services never die. You can never kill the free market.

that's retarded. we want to abolish private property. you want to keep it. our systems are mutually intolerable. so fuck off with that "we allow you but you don't allow us"

Again, when the capitalists come to buy your farm to build their gizmo factory you are not allowed to say no? You are thinking of the government here.

I like economic growth, that's what investing is for. That's what every economic model does, though in different ways. Do you think that in Soviet Russia the people who made the 5 year plan didn't have "a real job"?
Indeed and we need to enforce some real economic secularism. No lobbying, no stimulus, no bullshit.

I guess this answers my original question?
Well, if that is the case, the next question would be:

What are you trying to accomplish by spamming muh Holla Forums with your ideology that is obviously incompatible with ours?

>private property is right
Prove it.

>private property is a right
Currently. But this is just like saying that due to the current configuration of society we get our groceries for money or under Feudalism saying that the King is sovereign.

This is actually a fact. Look it up.

>Even if 100% of the market would be owned by some entity, you would still be able to work on your own.
You meant to say "sell your labor force in exchange for the fragment of your works worth OR if you have capital start your own business and hope for the best." Competing against such a monopoly ("100% of the market would be owned by some entity") is ridiculously hopeless, tho.

Right, because that monopoly provides it.

You can't kill something that doesn't exist, tho.

...

I'm kind of unique among commies in this regard, but morally I'm totally on board with libertarian (or rather classical liberal) thinking. Imo freedom ought to be our highest goal, but capitalism crushes it by depriving workers of economic agency, subverting the political system and creating an oligarchy, and driving the majority of the population into grinding poverty, where they have no freedom.

No it doesn't. Only labour creates wealth, and yet the majority of wealth go to those who labour, it goes to those who create no wealth. The place of the worker in the system is to be given less than what they produce so that those who produce nothing can be given free money.

But the market would hardly be free in such a case. When one entity dominates the market do completely then everybody else is subject to them, they effectively have complete control over the economy. This is the natural development of capitalism, and it can be seen in the tensions between small capital and big capital.

You can say no, but they'll find another way to crush you if they can't do it with force. They might try to embargo you somehow, wage a campaign of disinformation, etc. Also capitalism doesn't even really allow communist societies to exist within itself because it still imposes private property on them. It would still force this so called communist society to play by the rules of capitalism.

You also need to stop thinking o governments and markets as being separate. Capitalism describes a fully realized society system of which both markets and the state play a part. They are two tools of the same ruling class, effectively controlled by the same people and mobilized towards the same set of interests.

i don't even lurk Holla Forums or 4pol.
i just wanted to point out that you taking the moral high ground and claiming that libertarianism allows communism is retarded and u should kill yourself my lad.

Convince you, obviously. Just look at your performance ITT with an honest eye. You were proved that you don't understand very basic concepts, that you hold views that are basically conspiracies, that you hold anachronistic views, and kept repeating them.

Maybe you learned something today, maybe your head is so far up your own arse that you think that you totally dominated this conversation, ell oh ell.

Doesn't really bother me. I personally debate for the lurkers' sake.

This as well. They are historically (and functionally) inseparable.

Ok, I'll try (I'm not a philosopher):

The leftist idea of "property is theft" is based on the idea that anyone else _could_ have done the same on said field. It's like going to a carrot farm and demanding their carrots because they _could_ have helped with the harvest and now the fruits of the labor are denied for the whole humanity.
But they didn't do anything, I did. Therefore, I own it all, in good and bad.

What fucking world do you live in? There is no clean distinction between capital and government. The state is the apparatus that capital uses to exert it's control over society.

There's a distinction between private and personal property, even amongst libertarians.

Yet they were for personal property because of the liberty (in 'libert'arian) of being able to produce and own what you make.

Private property allows wealth to be created off of sitting idly on unused goods, which free market advocates appreciate. For me I don't care if people have private property, and in the anarchisms each ideology can peacefully coexist with each other.

I never said anything about competing. Services and creating new products will exist until the technological singularity.
Am I unable to trade things for the sudden? Well maybe in a 1000 years such chips have been implanted to our brains. Or are you suggesting the monopolies are somehow blocking all free trade all the sudden? You are thinking of the state.

No. You ARE yourself. Property relations have no bearing on this situation.
Congratulations. You just described the relationship the capitalist has with the product of other people's labor.

I shouldn't reply to this post because it's Holla Forums tier

But have a (you)

If I do not own myself, how can I own the actions of that self?

Free trade is a meme. It doesn't exist. The very foundation of capitalism is predicated on government intervention and regulation. You think in memes.

Explain.

True, and that's why I'm a libertarian. We need serious economic secularism.

You don't "own" actions. You commit them and are responsible for them. That isn't ownership in the economic sense.

Oh yeah? Tell that to the ancaps.

growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell.
The soviet union grew economically because socialism can only be build over advanced capitalism

That won't happen under capitalism

Do you think the government is working in the interests of the majority of people? Or is it possible that wealth disparity and private property give minority control of the legislative process to the wealthy and propertied?

Ok,

Also you could just call it all a spook and say might makes right

How about growth for the sake of sustaining the ever growing population of humans on this planet?
You are confusing the current state of crony capitalism and corporatism to capitalism.

My particular brand of capitalism has never been tried, folks.

Yeah, that's the problem, ancom has been tried and failed but ancap really hasn't.

Yes. Monopolies don't need to be more efficient to swallow everything. They simply exercise their power over you by the sheer might of capital. Even if you do literally everything better than a corporation, they still just buy you. The idea that a milieu of young, creative entrepreneurs will always challenge the rule of the corporations is sheer idealism and contradicts the self-interest of the actors.

Human population grow will have an stabilized number in a socialist economy. poor people has children as an investment on their future so people will have less chilldren if they have more economic guarantees

there is no distinction

Was supposed to be for

WEW

According to you then, capitalism has never existed nor been tried. I wonder where I heard that before.

jesus could you be more predictable

Let me dispel this particular myth you apparently got stuck in your head. No ideologies are "organic" in the way you describe. Every ideology can trace its history to the French Revolution and Enlightenment ideals, both left and right. If you're a native Anglophone, and I assume you are, your ideology descends primarily from the liberal conservatism of Edmund Burke (first pic).

Bourgeois ideas like "private property" were not organic, but were forced on the populations of Europe, frequently violently as was the case for many peasants living on communal farmland.

No it doesn't, capitalism is predicated very specifically on stealing the fruits of labors of others. Go ahead and try to morally justify it with your protestant memes, but social labor for private benefit is institutionalized theft no matter how you slice it.

No it doesn't. Maybe in idealist abstraction land, but in the real world capitalist markets require constant expansion and ultimately would not tolerate non-market societies. Such was the case in the colonial period, so will be the case in some divided Right-Libertarian/Communist split society.

I've been saying this for a while. You're all a bunch of jackboots hiding behind liberal and moralistic buzzwords.

np, m8

So let's separate your claims into two, first the one I agree with: (regardless of context) I should "own up" (again, disease of the English language, this) to the consequences of my actions. This is an ethical claim that I fully support.

The second claim of yours is a very loaded one, because it tries to argue on multiple fronts at the same time: psychology, neurobiology, philosophy of mind, ontology, even.

You are saying these things:
1) I'm the only one who can directly influence my nervous system.
The first problem with this is that you said "me" (based on your standards) twice: I am my nervous system, I'm inseparable from me.

The second problem is with this "directness." You are basically reviving some kind of free will in this argument: "I'm in control in my own mind!" Since you brought up the nervous system I'm inclined to say, that no, we are not in control in this sense. Our very "appearing free to ourselves" is an illusion our mind creates retroactively. (The obvious problem here is how to reconcile the lack of free will with ethics, but it can be done but its scope is beyond this debate.)

2) If others could "directly" influence me I'd be a slave.
Again, the problem is that you can't directly influence yourself even. Nevertheless, if what you are saying was possible, that wouldn't be slavery, but some kind of entity that shares consciousness with different bodies.

But this is the most interesting:
Which I'd translate as:
3) I'm free to choose from the options I'm presented with and if an option is forced upon me without an alternative I'm not free.
But what about the options themselves? You can't "chose" to live in communism, because it is not presented currently as an option, and because it requires a global society living accordingly. Also, we are almost never in the position to create these options for ourselves.

and finally,
4) The above mentioned constitute self-ownership.
It's just one way to put it. You could call it "blempishness" instead of "self-ownership" it still wouldn't be any less/more "contentful." What this debate is about, for me at least, is not the philosophical content of this concept, but its ideological one: defining your own relationship towards yourself based on a category (ownership) that constitutes the basis of the current historical conjuncture and works as its self-evident authorization.

A similar (but somewhat rickety) example would be defining this relationship as "soul" if we lived under Feudalism, where religion provided the conceptual/ideological tools for authority and the body politic.

1. You underestimate the capacity to be manipulated
2. Ownership doesn't just exist in a void. Your "right" to own something is entirely meaningless without the right social context, that accepts and enforces your claim.
3. You are using simple and unproblematic examples (eg. carrots), and saying that if you planted a carrot, that you are allowed to use it, is common sense. No complex "framework" required. The problem arises when you want to extend your right to own a carrot to owning entire islands or industries.

Remember, we live on a planet with limited space and resources. This means, the more property you own under your system, the more powerful you are, since it's seemingly a divine and unquestionable right to "own" something, as if a supernatural entity were to be maintaining a log of all items and who owns them.

The problem is that property aren't that clear-cut. I agree that there is a common sense notion of owning things, such as the clothes I wear the laptop I'm writing this on, and these things we call personal property.

But would you extend this notion of property to me buying up tons of hoses in a city I've never been to, I've never used and never will, and I don't protect (that's the states job), just to increase the price of living in that city? The only connection I have is a piece of paper with my name on it, saying I own it.

In other words, would you say that it's always the right thing to let private property alone, and there is no conceivable situation in which the opposite is appropriate.

The capitalist is the property owner. The farm is his private property, and under capitalism he may do whatever he wishes with it. One thing that is very profitable is to pay other people to generate a larger value (by planting, harvesting, …) than they are given in return (ie. employment). This is what we call exploitation. (this in not a moralistic term, it just strictly speaking exploitation, ie. systematically giving less for more work).

Now you might say "but the capitalist has his risk, he deserves a profit". We take this further, he doesn't only deserve it, his enterprise needs it to survive. If he were to generate no profit, he'd fail eventually. Therefore selling ones labor under capitalism always equals exploitation, not because the capitalist is evil, but because the economic circumstances of all participants necessitate this kind of behavior. Within the system of capitalism this kind of behavior is the only rational way to act. What we are doing is questioning the coordinates of the system itself and recognizing the contradictions within it. Our goal is to resolve the contradictions and supersede capitalism, leading to what we call "socialism".

Told this to a libertarian on omegle. He called this distinction a "cultural marxist" trend in economics. Cringed hard.

That's not how history works, tho. "Ideologies" can't exist separate from the material world. Nomadic shamanism can't actualize in the urban environment, because it would be totally purposeless.

Directly conflicting material worlds can't exist either. We can't live under a fascist/monarchist/capitalist/communist/etc. organization of the material world at the same time because they are mutually exclusive.

According to your inane example 100% of stuff is owned by one entity. This means there's nothing left to own. Property isn't created out of thin air. You can't create a hammer without having the materials first, you can't own the limited supply of land if there isn't any left, you can't build a factory if you can't put it anywhere.

I thought we were discussing politics, not sci-fi fan fiction.

That's not why the economy has to grow. Growing is a structural part of it's existence, not it's kindness (although this is already some kind of idealism, since the economy is made of up people, not the other way around)

The only thing that stands before monopolies is human imagination. New products, new ideas etc… And let's not forget services.
Even if you hold 100% of the capital under free, unrestricted trade an individual can rise to the top. Unless, of course the monopoly has a pact with the state.
I'm not an ancap either btw.

That's pretty much how it is now. The population rate will grow, of course, not so rapidly, but will still grow.

Corporatism and capitalism are different, "read a book". Free trade is different from allowing companies to lobby for trade deals and laws from the government and that applies the other way around too.

The were not forced, they were the natural progression to the industrial era.
Do you have to say "yes" when a capitalist comes to buy your communist land?
Me too, but the other way around, friend :D

Good poast.

Are you reading the replies ITT? It's been shown to you again and again that what you are referencing for the nᵗʰ time is a myth, it's not real.

This is pure idealism.

How? Describe the process without committing these errors:

Under communism capitalists wouldn't exist, it would be in the community self-interest to keep private property abolished.

Indeed, if my consciousness was transferred to another body, and I would be able to think and move my limbs etc. would it not mean I owned myself?
That of course depends on the question of whether or not my consciousness in another body would still be my consciousness, but at the moment, we have no answer for that.
Your second claim has to do with free will, which leads to a question of all ethics: if I do not have a free will, can I be held accountable of my actions? If no, you would destroy many philosophical arguments at once, but to keep our (at least illusional) sense of humanity, it's better to say yes.
Again, this is about the free will.
You cannot choose to jump from the roof of a tall building and fly either. Sure, our options are carved in stone, but that doesn't mean we cannot choose from the ones we are given.

No, it would mean that you are now that different body.

So the English Civil War, the French Revolution and the Revolutions of 1848, which violently replaced feudalism with liberal capitalism, never happened?

Peasants were never run off of communal farmland? The world wasn't violently conquered by Europe and turned into colonies to expand capitalist markets?

No one owns the land under communism. The capitalist would have to re-privatize it. This means military force, as is often the case when capitalists don't have access to land and resources that they desire.

I'm not the one arguing for authoritarian economic relations.

You realize that consciousness can't exist without a body, right?

And there I was complaining about idealism only to be countered with some bullshit like "the human spirit". Oligopols can buy off emerging competitors. Just look at Social Media. Look at the traditional media outlets. Look at every fucking branch of the economy. And to believe that a young entrepreneur wouldn't sellout is sheer idealism since nobody would reject the offer to be rich for the rest of his life.

I don't get it, if you are so anti-corporations and also hate Holla Forums, then why don't you just become a Mutualist or an Agorist?

What? If you remove the government the corporations would just negotiate the same stuff directly, without the government as their agent. Governments also have anti-trust laws to artificially keep the market alive. This alone should tell you that the tendency of monopolization is inherent in the system and not caused by some spooky notion of a government corrupting it.

No I don't, my mind is changing all the time. Even visiting this imageboard is changing me ever so slightly.
You mean might is right? Sure
The problem with comparing simple products to landmasses or components to products is the scale of things. An island can grow ever so more carrots than a simple patch of land can, so it logically has more value. Even communists should realize this. Nothing is stopping you from trying to own that value, but as you said (if I understood correctly) might is right and that applies both to you and the original owner.

In the best case scenario, nobody gets hurt and you trade something he wants for the island.

>Sure, our options are carved in stone, but that doesn't mean we cannot choose from the ones we are given.
No, not stone, but blood. You are trying to naturalize something that is human. Our options currently are presented to us by the rulers of our societies. We, collectively, can reclaim the right to govern ourselves, to give ourselves our own options.

DELET THIS

This is a semantic issue: When you say "Capitalism" you are referring to "free trade" (seemingly ignoring and/or normalizing the prerequisites for this to be necessary) while we are talking about the private ownership of the means of production, production for exchange and the existence of a class which has to sell it's labor for money (wage-labor) to survive, by buying their needs in form of commodities from the market.

What you are effectively doing is simplifying the situation, and amusing it's universality (see "it's just human nature"), thereby being able to ignore all the subtle aspects of the critiques of capitalism. Of course it would be stupid to be against capitalism if it were just "free consenting individuals partaking in trade with each other", but that's not the problem. This "trade" never exists abstractly just as such outside of a system of social relations. A worker has to sell his labor to survive, and in the end, he doesn't care much who profits of it. But he has to since there is no choice, to "abstain" from the market.

Well then let's hope he responds to my posts.

As evidenced by this thread.

What's stopping you from saying no and beating them in their own game?
I don't hate Holla Forums, it's a neat place for discussing political news
Because the right has a point in ignoring the demographics.

Call it "material support" then. Even an AI (whatever, virtual consciousness) needs a fucking hardware.

Nah. He picks things he thinks he can BTFO by repeating the same shit. Thread got boring.

Talking about your mind.. How THE FUCK did you translate this:
to this:

OP is an intellectually bankrupt ideologue.

Two things are stopping you from saying no. The first is that the wealth you would acquire by saying yes makes you set for life and places you in the world elite. The second is that if you say no they can leverage their vast wealth and power to destroy you in other ways, such as sabotage, assassination or predatory market techniques. Where a government exists they usually step in to stop those particular incidents from occurring but the government itself can be used as legal leverage in a similar manner to the sabotage etc.

Self-interest. Being offered a fortune which allows you to not having to work for the rest of your life and sending your kids to Harvard matters to most people.

Even if you have only 6 out of 10 entrepreneurs who sell out their firm to the corporations (the real percentage is higher, as it was mentioned in this thread before) you still have the tendency of monopolization since more emerging businesses are being sold off than the amount of newcomers. It's inevitable. Nobody forced the local water industry in Bolivia to sell out to Nestlé, it just happens.

All you have done is told me scary stories about corporatism and without going into that subject any further, no, you cannot stop free trade.
Even if 100% of the capita was owned by someone else, you can still trade assets. Or are you thinking about the state?
This is political discussion :D
I'd call things like communism and anarchism pure idealism too, but it doesn't matter, we are all just dreaming here.
Let's see
No, nothing is created out of pure air, you need people to run things, you need to hire them and pay them with money so they can buy things. With those things you can trade.
Unless you are talking about a post-scarcity world where everything (and I mean literally everything) is done by machines.

Some strains of socialism do, but may don't. Marxism is specifically amoral; it doesn't take morality into its critique of capitalism, nor its advocacy of socialism. It views capitalism as both undesirable and doomed to failure because of its inherent contradictions (as interpreted through dialectical materialism), not because of a sense of ethics, justice, or anything else. Even non-Marxist schools of philosophy often incorporate this perspective on history and economics (which are two sides of the same coin).

No such thing. Representative democracy is a compromise that exists because it's not practical for people to directly vote on all proposed bills, for reasons of both time and education. I don't have a problem with representative democracy, but we will likely one day see a future where people have enough time and education to make direct democracy workable, and I look forward to that (though I probably won't be alive to see it).

Depends on what that entails. If part of your "morality" involves extracting surplus value from workers, then the answer is no. Otherwise? Probably. Socialism will come with a gradual decentralization of government, which will advance libertarian sensibilities (though not necessarily deliberately).

That is literally the entire point of socialism, so yes.

Depends on the form of socialism. If you have a planned economy, then there will still probably be some trade, but it will be incidental and uncommon, like it was before capitalism–not because of restrictions against it, but because most people receive the necessities of life without having to exchange anything for them. On the other hand, if you have a market socialist economy, then trade will of course continue and remain the dominant mode of distribution. In the long run, as automation and learning algorithms improve, production will become almost fully automated, so trade will disappear almost completely–though that may take several centuries.

What happened to freed slaves who wanted to return to their bonds, or to former slaveholders who wanted their slaves to return? Socialism makes people more free, not less. No freedom you have now will be removed under it.

If you're bourgeois, yes. Otherwise, no.

Imagine today's world. Now imagine that it's no longer legal for you to be exploited in the workplace; you and your coworkers have an equal say and equal ownership of your business. Production is controlled by producers, rather than people who simply own capital. Your local government is free to secede if it so chooses. This is the form of socialism most likely to emerge given our present circumstances.
Does this sound more or less libertarian to you than the current system?

...

I don't think you know what idealism means. It does not mean "imaginary" or "unlikely" it is the belief everyone just has to change their mind despite the world.

Might, as in social power maybe? If you can convince people you own said thing, then you own such thing.
It can be done violently or peacefully.

In that example you can only trade with one entity though, the person who payed you. As he owns all capital he decides what to pay you and certainly has no special reason (as no state forces him to) pay you in money or allow you to trade with others, he can simply stipulate in his contract that your payments are non-transferrable under penalty of termination, which would lead to starvation and death.

Then what the hell are you talking about? You get what you want.

Indeed. That's why I made this thread.

I'm getting a bit too many replies to answer at a time, I'll grab a beer and make a huge post hang on m8s

That is what we call superstructure. The material base is legitimized through nations, religion, family, etc.

So in your opinion monopolies are not a problem at all? You know it's practically the same as if the state owns everything, right?

If you do mean socialism and not communism, people become slaves to the state.

Whoops, didn't mean to place flag.

I wasn't referring to a simple "chaining ones mind", but actual manipulation of consciousness by means of psychological warfare (eg. Advertisement, 1984, …) or even chemical/biological tools. (btw.: no shame in admixing you're wrong ;D)

No, but if you want to put it that way, I'd just say "might is". It's unrelated to some moral sense of correctness or evilness. My point is that without the concrete social context, there is no "right" to own something. Slavery might be illegal de jure, but if nobody stops you, you can go on, since the concrete circumstances allow it. If you were to whip your slave in public, governmental forces would probably intervene, and since they are more "powerful" (ie. are more probable to realize their will), they will make your master-slave relation impossible (eg. by putting you in jail). The moral background is entirely irrelevant.

Partially, but not only.
How is this relate do hat I said?

The reason I used the example island, is because it necely demonstrates how one person can "own" a finite amount of land, and thereby being the only peroson who may decide what may be done and what isn't allowed. If he's not stupid, he'd only rent out property to other people, and demand some kind of duty (or should I say taxes?), thereby basically becoming some kind of state, since he can regulate business any way he wants. And since this is pretty profitable, this will be the goal.

Remember: capitalism always gravitates towards what is most profitable, not what people "want/demand". There is a great demand for food in Africa, but people can't pay, so they starve.

International Brigades, please.

No, it hasn't. Socialists use the term "private property" differently from the colloquial meaning. When we say "private property," this is what we mean: a social relationship whereby a property owner takes ownership of the good (or money exchanged for a service) that another person produced using that property. So for example, if I own a printing press, and you use it, I own whatever you made with it.
Socialists oppose private property, and instead advocate for workers to own the products of their labor, either through democratic businesses (markets), or through the government (planning).

As anthropology convincingly shows property doesn't exist in "primitive" societies. Historically it didn't come about because some people decided one day that, "hey, wouldn't it be fun to exclusively occupy this land and kill anyone stepping on it?", but because technological advancements (agriculture, namely) created a surplus of goods that became a source of power, and the origin of a class society.

...

Addendum: The term "private property" is kind of shit, since it's so confusing to outsiders. It comes from the (now-old-fashioned) English sense of the word "property," which was generally used to mean land. Under serfdom, which was finally dying when modern socialism was created, land ("property") was an example of the private property relationship–the landowner took possession of half of what the serf (and later, a portion of what the sharecropper) produced. "Private property" was thus a perfectly natural term for an early 19th century writer to use to describe the relations of capitalism–namely, that capital had essentially replaced land as the factor that allowed someone to take what another person made.

Democracy IS mob rule. How do you think ancient Athens functioned? What we currently live in is not democracy, it is representative republic, very watered down democracy. When was the last time you voted on a congressional bill?

Private property in the Marxist sense wasn't established until a couple hunderd years ago.

How is that not congruent with Marxism? Part of the idea is workers owning the factory. If anything, we are more in favor of self-ownership

More than our current system. With our current system workers get the fruits of their labor taken from them by the boss, and handed back paltry compensantion not nearly worth what the boss took from them.

No it doesn't. Communism can't exist in a society in which people are exploited. People try to form co-ops but they often fail because traditional companies undercut them in an immoral fashion.

His wording of idealism's definition was shit. Here, when we say "idealism," we almost always mean it in the philosophical sense. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
Same goes for "ideology." That word has a specialized usage that is very common here. It's a bit hard to explain, but the simplest way I've seen it described is this: an imaginary relationship to a material reality. The go-to example is the boss who tries to be friendly with everyone; he is behaving as though he does not have power over his subordinates, when in reality, he does.

read some Sartre or something, my dude

No i don't think you understood me. It is about people just "choosing" to change their minds and the ideas we "choose" determining society. As in ignoring reality and imagining people just make pure choice.

Its late at night and most of us very rarely have to explain the definition. It doesn't come up in every day conversation you know!

I suppose you wanted to say capitalism.

Well I sure missed arguing with pro-capitalists while 8ch was down, and it's a great pleasure to see how little they know about the structure of the system they are defending.

CHECK MATE, COMMIES

I liked this post
Yeah I heard many like direct democracy more, which is great.
I personally don't think investing is bad.
True
Well, that is the whole free trade and investing part.
More liberatarian, sure, if it doesn't come with socioeconomic gotcha's such as disallowing free trade and investment and social rules.
I know many people in Holla Forums and Holla Forums are against "le fun" but I seriously do not care.

Sure, and he decides what to pay other people too and there's the leverage. Make better deals than the others under the rule of the 100%

I've got to look into that terminology more, but I meant what I said.

Monopolies are a problem, but not a problem we cannot solve unless the free trade is suddenly banned.
True, and as I said, if I wasn't the one pulling my strings, I wouldn't be owning myself anymore

To the "might makes right" issue, so it's a cultural/moral thing? Because that's what I referenced in my OP, stating that it evolved naturally.

Sorry if I stated it poorly but I was trying to state that owning an island is no different than owning a patch of land. Now, a lot of people will try and make fun of this but still:
If people will agree (voluntarily, without coercion) to come to your island and plant carrots, what's the problem?
You could have planted them yourself but you are using free trade, voluntary exchange to get help.
If they agree to it, what's the problem?

True, but it is often what people want/demand. Sure, there are people like in the Michell & Webb tonguebrush skit, but normal human interactions where people can laugh at these stupid creations.

No, I meant modern socialism, which got its start in the early 19th century. Serfdom was still around in Eastern Europe, and had only been abolished a few decades earlier in France. Capitalism emerged when serfdom was dying in Western Europe, but not quite dead.

Right, as long as the unmeritable have influence it becomes a popularity show with violence.

Only will happen if technocrats develop mind uploading to the net, with suitable AI that actually enables meritable learning. You can still be educated, but lack meritable knowledge on some issues, like most socialists and communists.

Investment doesn't depend on capitalism, fam. Even in a market socialist economy, you would still have debt markets and bonds, and probably commodities trading, too. You just wouldn't have common stock.
t. financefag

I like fun.

Hardly. Within a couple centuries, the production of basic necessities will be almost entirely automated, giving people plenty of free time and vastly more knowledge.
In practice, they don't even need that much more time and knowledge than right now, just a bit. You could still elect legislators, who would be knowledgeable specialists that can consult with lobbyists and experts. They would draft the bills, and the people would vote on them directly.
Direct Democracy 101, yo.

True, it is private property but what you are referring to is a voluntary exchange. If I own a printing press and you agree to print stuff with it, guaranteed that you print some stuff for me too, what is the problem?

They do, I made a post about it

That's the primitive communism theory, sure, we had tribalism and we helped out each other but that didn't mean private property didn't exist.
At least here, in yurup.

Indeed, it is the basis for growth in every economic system, but some people claim that it's a bad thing in some economic systems. I don't get it.
Of kek, a wordfilter. De ge ne ra cy is what I meant. I am all for social freedom.

That's not how capitalism works, tho.

Fam, I'm talking about advances in automation after capitalism is abolished.

Well hopefully being more knowledgeable means they understand the legislators' viewpoints and not just vote on memes.

Not only that, the concept of the "self" would be fundamentally undermined. But other than that, other anons have already shown how nonsensical the concept of "owing" oneself is.

There is none?

Because we aren't arguing about carrot farming, but the concept of private property as such. Again: Would you be ready to state this as a moral rule, that nobody should interfere with your private property, under any circumstances? Because if there are exceptions, private property isn't an absolute right, and that undermines the whole concept.

If you selfemploy yourself to harvest your carrots, no problem. What we don't want is a class of people paying another class to harvest carrots (or more generally work), since the latter class has no other choice, but to sell their labor for a wage.

And you haven't replied to:
From >>1540813:
- The problem of advertisement
- Private-goverment-on-an-island-problem
- Capitalism only does what is profitable

From >>1540760:
- "What is capitalism at all?"
- The simplification of "capitalism"
- The problem of forced markets

From >>1540715:
- The necessity of structural growth

From >>1540698:
- Buying up cities to raise prices
- Everything relating to exploitation

I know, there are a lot of people responding to you, and you don't have the time to respond to everything, but at least try to disprove the central arguments, instead of just arguing about semantics and corporatism.

It's rule by deprivation. You're free to enter a subordinated role in the workplace, or to starve.
Now, you can still have contract work without private property. Take a plumber, for example. He agrees to fix a customer's pipes for a certain rate of pay. Neither of them are in a hierarchical relationship. The plumber does his work, the customer pays up, and their business is concluded. If the customer refuses to pay or decides to cancel the work, it's no big deal.
Now contrast that with the relationship between a plumber and the owner of the plumbing company. All the cash that the plumber brings in from his work goes straight to the owner. The owner then pays the plumber as little as he can. If the owner decides not to pay the plumber, or to fire him, the plumber and his family go hungry. This is a hierarchical, exploitative relationship, because the value that the plumber produced has been expropriated by the owner, who uses his ownership of the plumbing company's capital as justification.

my mistake, then

Only in market systems.

I know its a typo, but
is ethics proper.

Aaaaaaaand dropped

incoming

...

The fact that you put a fence around a plot of land and called it yours. By what right is a portion of the earth yours? The land belongs no noone, and the procedes of it are only had by virtue of the labor that went into producing it.

From a traditional Christian perspective, the liberal capitalism is an ideology built on foundations of a mortal sin - the greed, the interest rate. It is basically immoral to enjoy profits you did not work for because those profits are taken from someone, who actually suffered to create value. Bank are the root of evil.

...

Protestant have a very 'symbolic' relation with the Christian tradition.

I'd say the German Lutherian tendency varies widely from the Calvinist and Anglican expression.

They tried to have their cake and eat it, too.

I define protestantism as schismatic to Rome while still being Latin

Weber's idealist framework wherein capitalism is advanced by religious values is plainly false. Colombus and De Gama did way the hell more for the meteoric ascent of capitalism than Calvin and Luther did, and that can be plainly seen in shipping manifests. It was not Cromwell's faith but the wealth of the Commons that precipitated the English Revolution. Indeed, the rise of capitalism in France was led by men of little faith like Voltaire, Rousseau, and Robespierre.

As for the idea that protestantism encourages work in a way that other religions do not, the work done by Irish catholics and Chinese buddhists in the United States was clearly on par with that of the indigenous protestants. Weber never bothers to compare the labor of protestants with that of other individuals in the same society at the same time, which is the only reasonable way to vet his theory. The opposite conclusion, that capitalism created the so-called protestant work ethic, is a far more reasonable conclusion to draw from history.

For fucks sake private property is a form of "infinite" usury. The idea that having done some work in the past you should be able to therefore with the product of that work or what you traded for with that work be able to extract infinite rent.

Hi
well this seems like a misunderstanding of Marx's ideas really. communism is not a sudden and willful break from a natural historical progression, but a result of this progression. On the issue of property rights and relations, it's important not to project our own views of property back in time too much here. From what I understand, within many feudal communities for example a significant portion of goods were produced not for exchange but for use and were not distributed according to exchange either. Admittedly I don't know enough on this subject, but again, I'd say you need to be more careful here.
First off, everything is political. Also I'm not sure where this notion of yours comes from but I'll make a guess. A central concept in Marx's work is the idea of us being structurally forced into doing something that we do not will. For him, what is especially fascinating about this concept is that we've created our society, but somehow we're unable to control it. What marx ultimately wants to remind us of are these impersonal forces in our society which we often feel like have more control of people than people do of these forces. These forces are the result of our collective behavior and arrangement as a society and can be brought under our control.
I'm not sure why you're calling these behaviors "morals" but I can understand this misunderstanding of communism to an extent. the point is that the social relations in a given society will tend to determine these "morals" as you call them. This behavior that you are describing is incentivized by the structure of the society you live in now. attempting to hoard as much of society's wealth as you can get your hands on in order to make an exchange with other holders of goods is only desirable in a society in which your needs are not provided for. Communists advocate control of the total product of one's labor because this is only possible once society has freed itself from the law of value.
utopian socialism is different from communism and the fact that said utopian commune exists within the context of a capitalist society has real effects on how this commune functions and also means that the forces which tend to cause crises, war, general famine etc. are left intact.
Converting Holla Forums may not be achievable. I don't really see the point in doing it anyways to be honest. Every once in a while one of them comes around, and when they do they are welcome.

Anyways, OP, I appreciate that you seem to be trying to have a genuine discussion here because most people just come here for cheap gotchas and shit. I think you have a bit of a warped idea of what communism is, but that's understandable, really. I hope I cleared up some misconceptions, but if I didn't you'll probably do better trying to read marx and others than asking leftypollers about this shit. In fact I think the communist manifesto actually addresses one of the main points you were trying to make here:

-Marx Commie Manifesto

to clarify, I don't actually have a problem with "enforcing morality on people" or whatever. I think Marx explains rather well why this ethic of "libertarianism" is incoherent. I just think you're thinking about this issue in the wrong way.

"Get in line or get purged!" – Jeses Chrost

I take issue with your whole narrative of "invading" Holla Forums. As far as I know, neither on 4chan or Holla Forums the board is not called "right-wing politics". If it was, we wouldn't have a problem. But polacks want to exclude any discourse that opposes their spectrum of political positions, and then portray it as the only possible spectrum.

So fuck off, you don't get to decide what passes for political discussion.

Luke 19:27

But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.

That's inside a parable, tho.

biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/19-27.htm

It's not like Jesus is saying there to kill people in his name.

oh shit that's a good one. Here's a personal favorite of mine:

Why does it matter? Live your life according to your own will, not according to an Iron Age myth.

Thatsthewholepoint.jpg

A hell of a parable it is, too.

biblehub.com/esv/luke/19.htm

yup

I'm not the christian here.

you're missing the point tho. the point is that "libertarianism" makes no sense as a concept. no matter how seemingly hands-off your approach to politics is, the apparently impersonal forces of capitalism still dictate how individuals live. "Libertarianism" is just turning a blind eye to these forces.

Freedom is the realization that the stronger prevails and through its conflict with the weaker tends to change society. Communism is the process by which these conflicts change society and in doing so reconciles these formerly hostile wills to each other.

I will to live my life according to iron age myths.

Good luck with that. Start by telling your momma to live in the forest while she menstruates.

will do, friend.

It's a parable about capitalists and imperialists

Ideas, be it leftist ideas or "libertarian" ideas, do not allow or forbid you anything.
It is the reality of capitalism, that is the reality of your beloved "free trade", that will lead to the revolution and the forceful removal of any trade whatsoever.