How is libertarian social democracy so unpopular? how can an ideology so based be so unknown?

how is libertarian social democracy so unpopular? how can an ideology so based be so unknown?

Other urls found in this thread:

dubtrack.fm/join/leftypol-comrades
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Uhhhhhhhh

u wot m8

This is honestly what I used to think "libertarian socialism" meant.

Because there is not political theory or anything for libertarian social democracy

PROTIP: IF YOU ARE EVEN REMOTELY PRO-"CAPITAL" YOU ARE NOT WELL READ LACKEY AND TOOL OF YOUR OWN POVERTY AND OPPRESSION

and you wonder why they call marxism a religion. have some individual thoughts

No theory to speak of, nothing to discuss. What's so hard to understand?

Is this basically a socdem welfare state with emphasis on civil liberties and a "live and let live" policies on cultural issues?

Sounds based to me tbh

No thanks

Rosa Luxemburg was a social democrat, and look where it got her.

I'm gonna fucking end you

Shut your whore mouth!

sorry but how is a decentralized mixed economy with a minimal federal government and numerous small welfare states that manager their own affairs "feudalism" or "fascism"?

are you just calling everything you dont like feudalism and fascism?

He's referring to libertarians who support monarchy and whose proposals would inadvertently lead to feudalism. And, the Stalinist theory that social democracy is actually "social fascism" due to both ideologies sharing roughly similar economic stances.


It's still autistic as fuck though.

Anyways, what you're suggesting is decent, though I recommend that you do some research on republicanism and syndicalism, especially in the context of administrating said regulations. You'd find that having different industrial federations, consisting of self-employed and cooperative workers, negotiating with one another with the oversight of a republican confederation of direct democracies would be far better than relying on government agencies, even if passed on to state governments. Also, welfare should be kept for the disabled and elderly only amongst other things, means-tested welfare is basically lumpen-feed and does nothing for the actual working class.

So it's essentially left minarchism?

seen that before.

but libertarian social democracy is more realistic for the united states, where the population worships the constitution like a second bible. my thoughts are, why not instead of trying to establish universal healthcare, let the states decide for themselves? basically promote free healthcare and education within states instead of using the federal government to influence people like B████ tried to do. imo this is way more effective and left wing, as it's change from bottom up, not top down, and it's also constitutional and libertarian too. if this is successfully carried out, maybe we can get rid of the "leftism = big gubmint" bullshit

idk, basically i think

not an argument

You do realized that I basically said that the government should be devolved as much as possible, even more than the Constitution. In fact, I propose reinstating a modified form of the Articles of Confederation.

And yes, I agree on healthcare and education. And, on using state governments for these goals. The point is that welfare is not the end all be all. The point is that every citizen own property, whether individually or collectively, and that we establish a complete direct democracy from the bottom-up, as envisioned by Jefferson and the Antifederalists.

yes, that'd be even better.
absolutely. why isnt this more popular among left wing circles? its 10000 times more realistic than ancomism or tankism in the US

FAAAAAG

You mean third way?
The socdems we currently have?
The comrades of bosses?

Ask this the one-percenters.

read the thread before you comment, my anarchist friend.

see

Well, it is very complicated, but the first cause is simply that most people have only heard about communism, social democracy, and maybe anarchism. Mutualism, syndicalism (Excluding anarcho-syndicalism), and republicanism are all ideologies that have been practically forgotten by most people. Part of this has to do with Marxism, and anarchism to a lesser extent, taking over so much of the Left in the early 20th century, though the process started earlier when Marx expulsed everyone in the International who disagreed with him. Basically, the Bolsheviks' internationalism made them attempt to spread their tentacles into every left-wing party world-wide, which in turned sabotaged home-grown left-wing movements like French syndicalism or the Farmer-Labor Party in America. So, "left-wing" parties became much more similar to one another during the 20s and 30s, with the exception of a few areas where anarchism became a thing, like Spain. Some of these "rejects" of this process would become left-leaning fascists. Ironically, they met the same fate as many non-Bolshevik revolutionaries in Russia, being executed and killed when they stopped being useful.

Basically, the Comintern made sure that their brand of leftism was absolute world-wide, instead of being different for each country. And, the world moved towards a three-way ideological war between Communism, Liberalism, and Fascism with little lee-way outside of those ideological barriers. This is also where we've gotten our modern "Left-Right" spectrum.

Another reason is that most "leftists" come from an American liberal and/or SJW background, even including the anti-idpol ones, and thus carry the usual assumptions that fill up the world view of liberals. They still see welfare, being against markets, and centralized government as important things in the case of Marxists OR they care more about muh individualism and smoking drugs than actual working-class liberation in the case of anarchists. Basically, society has conditioned us to believe that "leftism" = welfare-centralized state and American liberalism and that this is universal, even though even 100 years ago, many leftists would be disgusted at such things. And, the original leftists in the French Revolution and, yes, the American Revolution are almost the exact opposite of the most "modern" "leftists", the SJWs. Ironically, the modern "SJW"/liberal "left" has more in common with Hamiltonians and Bourbons than with Jeffersonians and Jacobins. This is not to say that anarcho-communists and tankies share that in common with them, but it shows that what the values that society considers "leftist" now are VERY different from what society considered leftist back then.


Essentially, everyone is being spooked by bullshit semantics that were invented in the 60s that should've been destroyed by the invention of the Internet, which allows us to explore every obscure detail of history with the simple pressing of some buttons.

By the way, you want to chat somewhere? I'm working on some projects involving ideas that may align with yours.

that would be awesome! come by the dubtrack room: dubtrack.fm/join/leftypol-comrades

i'd be interested in anything. just make ur name recognizable, i'll come in contact with you soon.

Well… Rosa was a social democrat..

H-how dare you