Socialism is an attack on individual liberties

Why are liberals so contradictory?

jej. Remember the Great Depression and Keynes?

In addition, most non-individualist socialist ideologies aren't "collectivist" proper, but simply don't see the relationship between the individual and collective to be antagonistic, but rather have a dialectical relationship between each other. They're merely two co-dependent aspects of the human condition.

Capitalism involves coercion. You post Smith but apparently haven't read him.

- The Wealth of Nations, Book 5, Chapter 1, Part 2: "On the Expense of Justice"

Free market is a spook

No, it isn't. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Read Marx.

what has Keynesian economics got to do with laissez faire/free market capitalism?

No one said anything about Keynesian economics.

Hi Joe how are you

Keynesian deficit spending, state-run market restrictions and funding for public institutions is what saved western Europe and later the US from the derelict hovels they had previously been following marginalist and classical liberal policy.

So if >>>Holla Forums is against free markets , wants totalitarism and socialism, are you just the same as the nazis?

Is there a board for left leaning libertarianism?

Correct, but not markets in general. 'Free market' implies liberal capitailsm with market distribution, not any mode of distribution involving markets.

Two antithetical terms.

Wew.

Also, you'll love this place if you want left libertarianism – we have plenty of anarkiddies.

There are market socialists on this board. I'm not one of them, though. There's nothing desirable about free markets if you don't regard the market as some sort of benevolent diety.
Meaningless buzzword
Yes. Worker ownership of the means of production.
No. For one, Nazis aren't socialist.

That would be this board. Left-libertarianism is socialist.

Left libertarianism is just anarchism. So this board.

Half of this board consists of anarchists, who would be self-described 'libertarian left'. So this place.

Personally, as far as the distribution of commodities goes, the market strikes me as being fairly consistent and predictable at how it gets goods into people's hands. Although I wouldn't say I'm so pro-market as much as suspicious of central planning. Though of course there's nothing wrong with meddling in markets if it is good for people, but I think you could be able to do that through influencing market forces rather than working outside of it entirely.

Because the logic of the market is the logic of capital accumulation and the commodity form. I don't know about central planning, but some form of planned system would be preferable.

I'm not saying that the market-system is the end-all and be-all, and I'm not denying that we'd still have problems such as overproduction and planned obsolescence, but market socialism still seems like the type that we can most readily implement. My concern is with increasing the economic and political power of the proletariat in the short term through cooperativization, to the point where they will have the power to effect political changes that are in their interest as a class through the same mechanisms that the bourgeoisie uses today, including eventually maybe actual socialism.

Also markets have been around for an extremely long time, and they're extremely robust given that they just sort of arise from human beings naturally fucking around with gains-seeking behaviour. I'm not advocating for laissez-faire by any degree, here, mind - I'm always explicitly saying that laissez ain't faire, just that we ought to be really cautious about implementing a non-market system lest we fuck it all up and end up with empty shelves.

except for higher HDI and PPP

I thought all those countries were corporatist, not capitalist.

true, but they have less restrictions on trade than others.

when this meme will die.

Now we've gone from free market to free trade.

How exactly do you figure that China and most of South Asia aren't Free Trade Central?

Sed like a true follower of the religion of Marxist-Redditism.

This.

don't markets involve trade? One problem with south asia are the devalued currecies.

You're conflating internal and external policy.

How the fuck do devalued currencies make China and South Asia not free trade?

All states are totalitarian. The goal of the state is to be an instrument of violent control. If a state has some way in which it cannot perform this, it is failing in its goal and thus expands itself to be able to. Thus state growth towards total control is an inevitable thing as time goes on.

...

Did i hit a nerve?

devaluation is a tool for protectionists and competitive devaluations inhibits free trade

Sure checks out, alright.

lol owned him. xD

But it isn't protectionism itself.
How exactly does competitive devaluation inhibit free trade?

Stop using my flag, faggot.

Like clockwork. For someone calling out others on being redditors, you sure act like one.

I am to lazy to partipate in the thread so i just bite the bite for a. (you) Like clockwork lefty/pol/.

You don't participate in any thread besides of spewing obscure phrases from the last post left book you skimmed, while posting like a redditor every time someone responds.

Face yourself, maricon.

...

1. you are limited by what currencies you can exchange. free trade allows you to exchange anything agreed by the two parties.
2. weaker currencies favour domestic markets, inhibiting the trade that we see in currency wars.

You mean there are fewer currencies that are advantageous to you.
That doesn't make it not free trade

rly, what's the deal with that guy? does everyone here just not get or agree with his stance or is het legit just here shitpost? trying to be inclusive with all ideas is good, but this guy just trolls or says dumb shit then backs out saying he only pretends.

this one

that as well
government restrictions on trade via currency manipulation is not free trade

How is currency manipulation a direct restriction on free trade?

It's not just a matter of disagreeing. Really, anarcho nihilists on this board would be less shuned if they stopped behaving like edgy faggots at every opportunity (n1x stopped doing this as often), and with this retard posting smug anime garbage coupled with some quote from a book or a simple shitpost mocking everyone and calling them Holla Forums, then just saying that you were pretending to be retarded, it is to be expected that no one will take you seriously.

So yes, he is here to shitpost.

it doesn't need to be direct. It is an indirect export subsidy.

...

And export subsidies negate free trade?

by defintion yes
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade

...

The wiki article seems to imply that this sort of thing doesn't negate free trade but, quite to the contrary, is an acceptable protectionist break from it without compromising a free trade policy itself.

And we're talking about a very indirect export subsidy.

It seems like you are arguing over a poorly defined terms. "Free market" and "free trade" take different and often contradictory meanings depending on who is using them.

The question you should be asking is "free in what sense?". Because if the response is "lack of government regulation" you can laugh and point out that private property itself is a legal regulatory construct.

yeh, only the tiny little benefit of a stable society

Both of which are higher in the lefter leaning green zones.

All of these countries get their wealth from centuries of plundering, but for the ones which share out this wealth to their proles slightly better, things are better.

I love how corporatism, sorry, crony capitalism, sorry, capitalism, is so peaceful.

This is directed at you but here is one for ancapistani's to answer:

Name ONE. ONE single capitalist country that has not been ravaged by corporatism.

No memes, only historical examples.

socialism is barbarism. simple as that.

Free markets and socialism aren't mutually exclusive fam. Also

Wew

Liberalism is an attack on collective liberties
It's bad for people's prosperity
It's a collective ideology that puts capital before individuals.
It's the "if you pull your bootstraps you will make it :^)" idea.

The Modern Leftist.
Always oppressed, angry, confused and still more repulsive to the working class than any "reactionary", liberal or fascist.

Switzerland.

Money loundry central you mean

Individualism compared to collectivism? That makes no sense, especially since individuals are affected by collective behaviour and often choose groups.

Wouldn't a better comparison be individualism to authoritarianism?

Individualism that cannot account for collective behaviour is bourgeois. They are dependent on each other.

new RDW webm

It's barely a country. You try moving there. It's incredibly expensive to live there.

not to mention they are incredibly xenophobic

Take a wild guess to which building you'd end up in.

No wonder that there never can be any good discussion cause you people only attack someone who agree's with someone and call them shitposters. Shitposters are the new jews of left/pol/.

Good job at proving his point

Funny!

As if i want to be taken seriouse, my act is an art to represent the lefty/pol/er autism in its most ironic form. I only am a mirror of what you all are, the fact that people keep responding proof's my point.

autism

...