Well Holla Forums you did it. I think I may be turning into a full blown leftist...

Well Holla Forums you did it. I think I may be turning into a full blown leftist. Back story I was an ancap who thought human freedom was merely freedom from intrusion of government. I didn't realize how wage slavery and capitalism oppress human beings. I didn't understand that capitalism and the state are brother and sister and both need each other to keep the working class subjugated.

I still like the idea of markets though, as long as its worker controlled factories competing in a market place but it this more bourgeoisie bullshit? Please help me I'm very confused.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beard_Liberation_Front
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Well if you believe in markets still you can be a market socialist or mutualist

Read Proudhon. He also liked markets and shit while being a socialist.

Welcome.

To start with I would suggest you read some Proudhon specifically What is Property: An Inquiry Into the Principle of Right and of Government

Mutualism muh fucker

Market socialism or mutualism is for you my boy

Well gee comr8s I just don't know what to choose…

Look into mutualism, anarcho-syndicalism, market socialism and left wing market anarchism

...

engel's beard wealths more than any of those shitty homeless beards.

Mutalism and Tito motherfucka!!!

Socialism is just about who controls the means of production. Markets vs. managed economy is a separate issue. The left disagrees on this.

Problems that arise from markets are mostly because of capitalism. For instance worker owned businesses or Socialist societies will get outcompeted by capitalism in a market every time because capitalist institutions are optimized for generating profit. Since money = power in a capitalist market, this means capitalist entities are optimized for survival. Think in terms of evolution: markets ensure the "strongest" survive and capitalist markets measure strength by profit. Socialist entities are democratically controlled, so they act according to the collective interests of the workers. In a capitalist market they will never grow as fast as capitalist entities, because capitalist entities will sacrifice the interests of the workers (lowering their wages for example) to take measures to be more competitive (lowering prices for example).

Now in theory with a healthy labor market where workers have reasonable control, they could deprive capitalist employers of labor and go work in a socialist co-op. We don't have that though. Instead capitalism has a monopoly on the means of production, so workers are forced to sell their labor at much less than its value.

worker cooperatives are shown to function, and are a great step forward to more rationally organizing people, reducing poverty and unemployment, reducing the effects of economic crisis, reducing the class power of the bourgeoisie, etc etc, all without putting power in the hands of the state!
but we should experiment. if the state can't produce as efficiently in a particular field, like food, cooperatives can do it. if the state can do something more efficiently (economies of scale) like energy or transport, then the state can provide it.
with cooperatives, you could even form networks of mutual aid with other cooperatives and move towards non-market forms of distributing services.
experimentation

Like other have said you can be a market socialist. I don't think it's the solution, but I support it as a transitory means of achieving communism or as something to fall back on in the event that a planned economy is facing trouble.

Mutuallism btw is a libertarian form of market socialism. I don't know why people make this distinction as if they were separate.

Grow a beard like a real commie you pansy shit

that is a "shitty homeless" beard

OP here I know this may seem silly however I feel compelled to share it with you because maybe….just maybe this could help convert other Ancaps. This is the thought experimented I conducted.

If I were stranded on a deserted island with some other people I would consider our economic arrangement to be capitalism (I'm using the right libertarian definition of capitalism as being simply voluntary exchanges of goods/services)

If I went out and fished and caught let's say one pound of fish, and I traded my one pound of fish for three pineapples that was a voluntary transaction and the an example of how the price mechanism functions. All of this is fair and square.

I then started to think about what leftist say about "wage slavery" and "extracting surplus value" and realized what's actually going on in the world.

In reality I'm not just fishing and traded my fish for other goods. Some fucking asshole is forcing me and the others on the island to fish for him, to spend all day collecting "his" fish because we use "his" boat and only receiving enough fish keep us from starving. This same asshole is also colluding with the dude on the island who makes his boats to keep their price artificially high so the common fisherman could never realistically afford one and free himself from this arrangement. These dickheads are also colluding with the dude who makes the shelter we live in to keep us as debt/rent slaves.

I don't know if that made any sense but I guess I realized that it wasn't just my individual various monetary transactions that were being exploited like income tax, licensing etc. But rather the entire economic climate is fucked. It's all fruit from a poisonous tree. Even if we overthrew the government it wouldn't change much as we're still enslaved by the capitalist class. I'm sorry I ever doubted you.

The "it isn't fair labour if your alternative is death" argument? yeah that definitely helped me as well - used to be a lolbertarian but never got the message

Raw ancaps seem to have everything down but forcing through lack of options, and then paying them for less than they're worth, isn't really acceptable in society

"homeless shitty beard"

socialism has two requirements, broadly speaking:
1 worker control
this is generally thought of as direct self management by workers. cooperatives, although unable to expand rapidly because they have no access to capital investment, actually run more efficiently, are more productive, and last longer than top-down style businesses. I'll let another user help with the source for that claim, as it has been posted here multiple times, but I don't have it atm. In many coops, workers elect the CEO like a board of directors does. workers grade the performance of bosses, and provide upward information flows, that capitalist enterprises often lack and suffer from. Workers have a vested interest in the success of the business, in the case of a cooperative on a market. humans performing complex and creative work (as opposed to simple repetitive work) are shown to perform worse when given monetary incentive for high performance. This opens up the space for cooperatives where people all have equal pay (once you get to a certain level of productivity, as studies show motivation declines after the 70,000 dollar mark). If this is possible, than cooperatives can form networks of mutual aide, providing a set of services available to each member of the coop. This opens the space for part 2
2 production for use
producing goods to sell on a market IS NOT SOCIALISM
when the state guarantees a service like healthcare, transport, or energy, this is socialism. it's production for use for the community. when the state produces goods to sell them for profit and reinvestment in production, this is still capitalism, also called state capitalism. production for use can be from the state, with remunerated labor or unremunerated labor. communities can also produce for themselves without the state, and individuals can produce for everyone without the state aka open-source software.

Tell them to read the first chapter of Hegel's "Philosophy of Right", he basically argues that since human consciousness can only find expression through the physical world, property is tantamount to an extension of yourself, and is therefore equal to freedom.

Then point out that private property is by nature exclusionary, meaning that it can only be gained and accumulated by depriving other people of its use. This means that the accumulation of property by definition makes everybody else less free, and this violates the utilitarian ideals of freedom that are the basis of libertarian thought. Under libertarian philosophy, the limits of your freedom sit at the point when they begin to infringe upon the freedoms of others, this means that capitalism is inconsistent with the principles of libertarianism. The only solution to this problem is to either create an equality of property, thus bringing about an equality of freedom, and a socialist society. Or else to eliminate property's private characteristics, thus bringing about communism.

hope ya'll are aware that this is a meme
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beard_Liberation_Front

Fugg of beardies, Smooth skin Master Race!!!!1!

I was like you too OP, I transitioned from lolbertarian into a nazbol, into a socialist.

The distinction here is between methodological individualism or holism so to speak. Marxist-Hegelian tradition looks at society as a totality that reproduces itself and analyzes the position of individual vis a vis the socio-econo-political aspects of it. Ancaps are never able to do that, they always construct mythical subjectivist abstract narratives, e.g. Hoppe writes about Keynes and then immediately jumps to Robinson Crusoe and Friday island situation where they start from the scratch, 'homestead' resources and land and then trade, and proceeds to usual ancap whinings about property and tyrannical central government, while all of this is completely historically irrelevant – we never had the situation when 'economic game' was started afresh, the mass of people were always exploited by the thugs also known as kings, lord and feudals, later had their land enclosed so they flooded the newly emerging cities where the new ruling class of capitalists were ready to exploit them, and modern industrial class struggle began – we are still part of it. Where is Robinson Crusoe here? Should be obvious that the people are getting exploited (both historically and structurally) here and trying to use the state to fight back. The more intelligent libertarians actually notice something like this and become a geo-libertarians, or Georgists or w/e.

tankies are not socialists

oh please stop with this. They are socialists and so are the anarkiddies.

EVERYBODY BE FRIENDS

NO BULLYING ALLOWED

pshhh, sorry for trying