Daily reminder that communism/socialism, anarchism, all originate from classical liberalism and therefore any interpretation of them (Leninism, Stalinism, Juche, etc) that does NOT have as its goals freedom of the individual, liberty, reduction of the state, and egalitarianism, is not only ahistorical, but anti-Left.
Daily reminder that communism/socialism, anarchism...
It is therefore that Leninism, Juche, Stalinism, Bolshevism, and the like are reactionary elements, as instead of being progressive institutions (the trend of history from Rome to the Present shows a reduction in state and authority), their goals are in the opposite direction as they seek to maximize the state and authority, and diminish the individual.
They are also even anti-Marxist in that they place idealism over materialism, at least in their praxis, which is to place authority in a vanguard and hope (in the height of idealism) that those entrusted to liberate the people will not corrupt the state for their own material interests.
No they don't, the only thing socialism and liberalism have in common is that they're rooted in the Enlightenment.
Classical liberalism and socialism have always been both:
- opposed to the state
- opposed to the old order of kings and hierarchy
- insistent on the primacy of labor
- insistent on the freedom of the individual
but socialism proposes we abolish capitalism, money, and economic hierarchy. liberalism loves those things.
MODERN """"""liberalism""""""" loves those things, you brainlet. And I'm not even a liberal, just so you know.
Go read Adam Smith or JS Mill, whose ideas would fly in the face of capitalism as it eventually developed. Remember, these people may have supported markets originally because they thought it would lead to equality, but were strongly distrustful of elites. Yes, they may have supported private property, but their definition of private property appeared to differ somewhat from the modern definition–classical liberals like John Locke were skeptical of absentee ownership and outright rejected the notion that such ownership can happen without the state (unlike modern "liberals" who think private property is a fact of nature).
Consider where the labor theory of value came from.
Hint: not Marx.
ITT anarchists BTFO themselves
And I am not saying that private property or markets are good. I'm actually saying that they were good positions for the time. But if you adapt the classical liberal arguments to the present industrial/post-industrial society, they lead to different conclusions.
Hey fellas, isn't it bourgeois to listen to another man telling you what to do?
Please read What is property and come back OP
liberalism is based on property ownership, anarchism is not
this is the basis from anything else and where the rest of your spooky concepts come from
How does it feel to be a brainlet who only speaks in logical fallacies?
I know this. Classical liberalism was a philosophy of its time, but if you apply the basic reasoning of liberalism to the present, you get something much closer to socialism or even communism. Read my other posts in this thread.
another non-argument by a red reactionary
Their definition of property ownership was closer to a "for-use" rather than a "for-rent" justification, so it conforms more to personal property than private property.
What the fuck are you on? Classical liberalism and neoliberalism are the same thing defined by different eras.
there is no conflict here user, the basic debate in political economy has always been the idea of property ownership, the rest of the arguments are on second term
liberals defend the notion of private property, anarchists and communists don't
Nigga we wouldn't even be saying "Private property is theft!" if there wasn't some kind of implication of the right of ownership there.
Furthermore, this is not even a rebuttal, because it's very easy to see that in a society (17th century) where the state was significantly more powerful than it is today, with all property under the ownership of the crown, the notion that individuals should have their own property to themselves would reduce the concentration of wealth and property and therefore bring all of it into more common ownership. Modern-day pseudoliberals stick with the argument's conclusion, which no longer follows from the premise that any thing described as a "right" is a universal entitlement, otherwise it's just a muh privilege. So as private property in the 17-18th centuries would disenfranchise the king and enfranchise many, today private property disenfranchises many and enfranchises economic royalists (banks, landlords, etc).
umm, are we in the same plane? liberals indeed belive in the right of ownership, anarchists and communists don't
a rebuttal to what? to your claim that liberalism and anarchism/communism is the same?
yes it is, again, I already explained to you the key difference, this being property rights
lmao no, the state is still the same, the difference is just the current liberal state has made it easier for proprietors to appropriate the world.
yes, that is liberalism, and is exactly the type of society in which we currently live. anarchists and communist want to abolish the notion of private property as a whole, not just distribute property under a liberal state. the difference is clear
ok, so now that you understand the liberal notion of private property, tell us how is this in any similar to a poilitical movememnt that wants to abolish the notion of private property
Not only that, but the man you are arguing with is straight ignoring the fact that a lot of the skepticism towards private property started with liberals like Rousseau and Paine who started to see how property was beginning to create a new class system that ran counter to the ideals they hold. In fact, Rousseau was probably one of the earliest people to use the word bourgeoisie the way we use it now.
imagine being this much of an eurocentrist
Then why is it that we mock claims about communism collectivizing toothbrushes, and allowing anyone to do what they want with everybody else's possessions? Wouldn't the whole argument that exploitation is bad for us because it does not give us the full value of our labor be nil if we didn't believe in ownership of some sort?
if there is no right to private property, then there is no reason why I would have to give any surplus value to the proprietor on the basis of me using his property.
we don't believe in private ownership of any kind, that's why no one but yourself keep the surplus value created by your labour
the notion however doesn't stop there, as Marx explained that the problem runs deeper, this problem being the law of value, this is why Proudhon's ideas of mutualism fall short and why some anarchists have abandoned in favour of gift economies.
the problem is not only the proprietarian claim over the factory, but the fact that the market forces, force us to comply to the laws of supply and demand, which means we have to produce for exchange and not for use