Hello. I would like to learn more about libertarian socialism. What is your opinion on taxation, libsocs?

Necessary to keep capitalism from falling apart.

Not understanding the base/superstructure dynamic, thinking libertarian socialism is an oxymoron, telling people to avoid wrongthink instead of to read it critically, and failing to differentiate anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are all strong indicators of Holla Forumsishness.

But it is you memelord, deep down all anarkiddies know that in the case of crisis they will have to give up on their farce of fridumz above all and make labour camps like in kekalonia or force the draft like Makhno
Marx talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat did not state an opinion how should shit be ran, but the fact.

...

In all fairness he could just be a retarded leftcom. Expect some screeching about the real movement to abolish the present state of things or how every type of organization is a state.

Really sends my brain into ogredrive

What does this model of representing the reproduction of class societies have to do with socialism, a classless society, and whether or not it can be called libertarian or authoritarian?

Yes: we cannot bend the nature of a revolution because it is by its very function authoritarian in one shape or the other, and we cannot characterize socialism as either "libertarian" or "authoritarian" because modes of production (i.e. capitalism) and their historical conditions determine the character of how they are managed (i.e. with or without democacy, how much democracy, with or without a welfare state, how much of it, etc.). Socialism will not bend to you or my Good Ideas, but to its own ways.

What wrongthink? I suggested they avoid Bookchin accompanied with an offhanded anti-semitic slur and a picture in which he defends a state.

Anti-Zionism is the opposition to an active bourgeois ethno-political movement started by and in the defense of a Jewish identity, anti-semitism = opposition to the Jews and Judaism based on what is either or both the Jews in the various ethnic groups they represent or the Jewish religion. As a communist I transcend a hatred for essentialized identities and oppose any and all forms identity-inspired movements, because they are decidedly bourgeois in character. I will neither support Palestine in its bourgeois ideological desire to assess itself as a state nor Israel. I stand with the workers of all nations against their common enemy and this enemy's abuse of the workers in their aims by turning them against one another. The abolition of capital defacto means the end of the Jew and any other identity as identifiable political bourgeois institution.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/

nobody is arguing for authoritarianism, we're just suggesting you're retarded for buying into some sliding scale of freedumz-no freedumz, especially since absolutely nobody ever upholds those petty ideas when confronted with the people who want to stop the revolutoin and murder you for being a commie.

Implying anyone does that. Really some basic understanding of anarchism would really help you to not spout such bullshit. Unnessecary hierachy and opression has real negative effects with potentially catastrophic consequences, not having popular support is a death sentence.

Have you even read the article by Bookchin? Stop using the cheapest slurs you dont even stand behind because you lack any understanding of what you are criticising.

Yes. In it, Bookchin acknowledges all the horrors of Israel after acknowledging those of Palestine and other Arab factions and states in the region which would be fine, but takes the side of Israel for being reigonally the most "progressive".

And we all know the less of a doodoo head you are the more socialist your government is.

So now we have a distinction between the necessary hierachy and oppression and unnecessary hierachy and oppression. Obviously the first one is passable, likely because it can be used to fight the people who don't agree with me(like reactionaries), but all other kinds of hierachy and oppression (that are not specifically against people I do not like) are bad.

Base and superstructure applies to any society, Marx just fleshed out his model for capitalism specifically because that was the target of his critique. He could have gone into detail on feudalism but didn't bother because it wasn't relevant.

You're missing the trees for the forest. The mode of production is shaped by the people who labor within it, and in an attempt at a socialist system, the more democracy is present the more the workers will be able to shape the system deliberately and consciously instead of leaving its evolution up to the influences of natural forces and forces that emerge from collective, unaware actions.

That wrongthink.

No you don't because you're invoking a racist caricature based specifically on a physical attribute as opposed to a personal one like, say, greed. And calling racism bourgeois is blatant historical revisionism. Racism (and anti-semitism specifically) is far older than capitalism.

I'm what most people would call a "brocialist" and this is just fucking stupid. Fighting identity politics here and now is counterproductive, not because it's dependent on capitalism, but because it's much harder to defeat under capitalism and capitalism would find new idpol to stir up anyway. Once we are rid of capitalism, racism and so on will not just evaporate into the air. These are products of institutions, yes, but they also depend on the attitudes of real people, which are generally inflexible. Identity politics is a battle that needs to be fought, but meaningful and lasting progress won't be made within a capitalist society.

Taxing income from labour (one's own, not exploited surplus) is blood-suckery (and state power coercive in general) and therefore undesirable, but if one is to choose between state power (somewhat democratic in the west) and corporate power (undemocratic everywhere), then taxation to some reasonable degree is a lesser of two evils and is something I'm willing to accept.

wow, he's basically a jewish supremecist sacrificing kids to moloch

This is how tankies think but not libertarians, a system can only be self adabting if it allows the necessary freedoms and allows people to preserve them, its not about making one side win its about allowing a long term successful system which needs to be organised along libertarian lines. Autothoritans are naive when they think their system can survive if its based on shorterm unprincipled actions that strangles open discussion, politics and makes stable transfers of power very hard. Betting on maintaining a principled socialist leadership whithout a wide self sustaining socialist sentiment in the population is stupid.

Where does he do that exactly? He merely denies that Israel is the real problem of the ME, he rightfully states that capitalism and feudalism are the problem.

See this is what I'm getting at: you presuppose that someone could ever "choose" unnecessary hierarchy or oppression, when you should see hierarchy and oppression as the byproduct of certain conditions and their development. If today we fight against hierarchy at the state and democratize it, we will just have touched upon the superstructure of things: we will still be compelled to make our decisions in accordance to certain economic laws that are endemic to the mode of production. You are treating the mode of production as a mode of management, which is retarded. If today people on a massive scale fear socialism it is because their beliefs are cumulatively influenced by the mode of production they live under. These "unnecessary" hierarchies will quite ironically cease to be "necessary" when a change in certain conditions no longer necessitates them. ("Unncessary" and "necessary" are both empty categories and both unnecessary in essence without a material context.)
Re: mass belief. The ruling ideas of a society are that of the mode of production. All important opposition to their historical state of things were at first minoritarian, and it is only by enforcing themselves and asserting themselves with authority that they saw change. "Popular" support also implies the inclusion of the bourgeoisie into your ideas, which will never happen, or on a very minute, almost irrelevant scale.

Not sure if you're parodying me or my position but I agree with that sarcastic statement. The Israeli bourgeoise is not better for the communist movement because it's more "progressive" than the Arab bourgeoise of the region (or any other bourgeoisie for that matter).

You brought it up in the context of liberty versus authority, which in the context of capitalism and what form socialism can take there just refers to how the revolution shapes itself. A revolution will attempt to demolish the base of that society, naturally through assertive authority, which will consequently alter that base from which a superstructure will spring. Even in the context of a hypothetical communist society, it would work the same: there will be a base and only that base's standing will meaningfully alter the superstructure. It's useless to both make a sliding scale value judgement of libertarian versus authoritarian on the nature of revolution because it is and must be authoritarian, but also on the eventuality of a new type of society because that society will function on its base and this base will only be tackled if the superstructure it spawn is unbearable.

LMAO he wrote extensively about it in his first economic manuscripts (1844) and in the IWA letters and correspondence transciptions and Capital vol. 2 and most famously 18th Brumaire of Napoleon.

No, the mode of production isn't shaped at all: it simply is this mode of production. The superstructure is shaped by labour's historical-material conditions, and this labour occurs with [x] intensity, [y] volume, etc. by needing to respond to the demands of particular socioeconomic laws endemic to the mode of production. How this is managed (not produced!) is superstructural and can take on various forms, but how it is produced (not managed!) must happen regardless or the system implodes and those who support and maintain it will suffer.

Wrongthink is saying "don't do [thing], or else…". I'm telling everyone here not to bother with Bookchin because I honestly think he's a complete idiot.

I would call you a disgusting lifestyle cumskinoid and still not desire your eradication on that basis (or in general). A black flag poster once made that wordplay of his name and thoght it was really funny so I keep on using it from time to time (and it's rare that black flags ever post good things on this board).

If bad theory leads you to the believe that this is necessary then yes, a powerful faction can chose the wrong political form. Just like bad socialist theory can lead to a easily degenerating parliamentary system after your minority seized power.

Your revolution directly shapes the conditions, the simple decision in what to invest your ressources directly shapes the technology which is not neutral and thus also influences the kind of society you will live in.

I am not, you are treating the mode of production as the only variable in society, which is obviously wrong. The political system even under capitalism can be very diverse and potentially cruicial to its downfall or survivial for a time(Is organizing in Switzerland against capitalism the same as in the USA? Or should we adabt to local issues and option? Will the political system be the same under more centralised economic planning than under more decentralised approaches?). Just like not all bourgeoise revolutions achieved success not all socialist revolutions will achieve success, and we could learn from the past on why that was. You cant know the exact moment when socialism will win, so you gotta try your best in your current situation, read Rosa.

And you will only get rid of these hierachies if you have a system where you can get rid of them, ie. a democratic system that tends towards decentralisation and flat structures. Not getting rid of these hierachies can lead to the downfall of your revolution and regression in the worst case, staving of socialism for a coupple more decades. And maybe dooming the whole planet in the process.

Congratulations.

You're word for word agreeing with what I'm saying here except you refuse to ascend the principle to all other managerial categories under capitalism and you're obscuring the essential character of revolution.

I never implied this at all. I said that a meaningful assault on racism, hierarchy, etc. and their legacy are only worthwhile under a paradigm that no longer institutionally calls upon them in one form or the other systemically. The way towards this new paradigm will, however, be wholly authoritarian by its very function.

Their attitudes are inflexible because until we have forced the base of society to change, these attitudes will forever mirror the ruling ideology and the base it sprang from.

>fucking Arabs (notice how it's always an assault on a grouping as such, with no look into class character of the orchestrators) couldn't be as not as bad as the Israelis
>so yeah guys, with all these identities abstracted into cultural characters, I gotta give it to my niggas in Israel, they're progressive(tm)

He makes absolutely no mention of any mode of production or class in the article. On top of this, in this text he fails to mention the actual genocidal nature of Israel while mentioning the Arab states' (the former had always actually been successful of genocide). It's the usual idealistic rambling about "everything would be fine if everyone just had the Good Ideas and there wasn't any hierarchy, muh (non-class focused or actually completely devoid of it) federalization!".

Oh man you are one of the retarded leftcoms. I am out of this retarded discussion, read a fucking book and stop weaseling around arguments.

that is not what he said

Don't you have a thread to say that feudalism is stateless and that post-capital is a class society in right now?

M8 authoritarianism isn't simply one group of people exercising authority over another. If you use force to prevent the domination of other human beings then you are acting in accordance with the Liberty principle. Libertarian socialism isn't an oxymoron, precisely the opposite is true. Non-libertarian socialism is an oxymoron.

I dont even know what to say to that.

You literally said feudalism didn't have a state, modern or not. That's retarded whether you're a Marxist or not, but then you went on to say that there can for Marx be such a thing as a one-class state that is proletarian without it defacto being a class of abstract capitalists. Get back in that thread faggot you're not done.

I said nothing idiot, how do you even get the idea I am some other user? And I really doubt you are even able to understand what communalists write here, your tendency to spout garbled unrelated nonsense mixing up categories and trying to force super simplistic definitions into discussion clearly beyond your level gives that away.