Ron Paul wants a free society but doesn't advocate anarcho-syndicalism? So he doesn't want a free society. He wants a society that is corporate controlled, don't tell me "he wants to get rid of federal reserve, so hes anti-corporation". No doesn't work like that. He wants people to be exploited under corporate owners. When someone wants everything privatized in a hierarchical structure, they are capitalist. In fact pro-capitalism comes to mind. Ron Paul wants private tyranny.
It's actually not quite correct to say we need their wealth. They also need the common workers and the purchasing power of the consumers. If anything they both need each other on some level, but if the poor could free up their state's resources they would fare far better without than the Rich than the other way around. Not everyone Rich is hard working, and "wealth creator" is little more than a myth.
@AStarSpangledGirl Ron Paul is a Friedman/Rand-style Libertarian. A core tenant of that ideology is that Capitalism is a necessary social condition for freedom. While Socialism doesn't equate volunteerism, it doesn't inherently prevent it either. The method of economic distribution is only related to conditions of social organization under models of propaganda, unless that method explicitly requires some form of State power to defend property rights.
Without straw men libertarians ARE FUCKED. The JOINT highest earners in the US are the right wing business people and the highly educated LIBERALS. It is NOT the case that the right have the money and the left NOT... The states that have MOST government handouts ARE THE REPUBLICAN STATES. THE ENGINES OF CREATIVITY and EDUCATION are the LIBERALS! And 92% of ALL Americans are 'socialist' (social democrats). So EXCEPT FOR EVERYTHING PAUL CLAIMS he is a fucking bigot and WRONG!
Ron Paul as usual spouts nonsense with no basis in reality.
Contrary to what he says, a capitalist society COULD exist in a stateless socialist society.
Libertarian Socialism is conceived politically and economically as a free confederation of autonomous self-governing communities which are voluntarily networked together.
If any community or group wanted to secede from the confederation and institute wage-labor, class domination, and all that fun stuff, they'd be free to do so.
If you have the right to your money, then it's a capitalist society. That's pretty fundamental. Also, I think that you are unaware of what socialism is. It's merely pooled wealth and resources. It's an economic system not a political system.
A corporation is socialized, for heaven's sake. It's just private.
This is why Paul fails; he is still in elementary school when it comes to this stuff. "We're all Austrians now," eh? He'd have a heart attack if he understood it.
lol Are you seriously trying to imply that Ron Paul isn't a capitalist?
Also, I don't use wikipedia as a source of information, you should trying reading an actual book on political science sometime if you want to know what "socialism" actually is.
And "voluntarism" is a kind of vulgar possessive-individualist fantasy popular with spoiled upper-middle-class teenagers.
I never exactly set out to offend anybody by simply expressing my opinions but if you are then I'm afraid I can't say more than offense is something that's taken, not given.
Also, on the subject of nature, what you're espousing is a dominative relationship towards nature informed by an anthropocentric fallacy- this is especially evident in your use of the anthropological term "primitive" to describe it.
Humans, and all the progress we've made, are PART of nature.
Yes. He was a great thinker . . . for the 18th century.
The fact that many today still hold up his ideas as relevent to our current economic situation is just absurd. Not to say he would have approved of the system his ideals are frequently brought up to defend.
As to the question "what the fuck is a capitalist?", I would say very simply that a capitalist is, well, someone who supports capitalism. That is, a "market economy with private ownership of the means of production".
The problem is , one side will use the more arcane European/Eastern definition, the other uses the U.S. definition.
You're all arguing two completely different things.
Libertarianism in the U.S. is capitalist conservatism, a capitalist system of markets and economies with minimal state. Libertarianism elsewhere is anti-capitalist, voluntary socialism which is also minimal state.
@AStarSpangledGirl Nice job star! You would think these socialists would look to the history of their failed ideology & realize just because it sounded great in their womens studies & sociology classes in college doesn't mean it actually works.
@AStarSpangledGirl, excuse me, but have you read any of Noam Chonsky's work? Because it seems ike you don't get what MsSexySocialist was trying to say, also, ending with the condescending "YOU darling." Just makes you come across as pretentious and therefore it means you don't really care if your message gets across to this person or not, at least it seems so
@AStarSpangledGirl Since you said to go to wikipedia I did. First sentence, "Socialism is an economic system characterized by the social ownership of the means of production." Paul uses it in totally the wrong sense like the majority of all conservatives do by relating it to government tyranny over business. All socialism really is is democracy extended into the industrial sphere. The public workers would democratically run the business' they work for instead of being subjected to labor division
@JPizzle1490 Not taking sides but just letting you know that wikipedia has become a more legitimate site. You have to cite sources before posting new information and if it's bullshit they usually take it off
@MegaLikeasomebody Oh sure, I was only citing because the guy said, "Go revisit wikipedia." And, I was agreeing with wikipedias definition. I like wikipedia just fine. In fact, it's becoming more and more common that college professors will except wikipedia as a source because, generally, it's a good one!!! :)
@MsSexySocialist capitalism always leads to concentration of wealth,and ultimately power.Free society is not capitalism.Free society is more likely voluntarism anf free will basis system,like trading service and goods.
But of course it all depends on the kinds of structures and institutions you have in a theoretical society that has surpassed both statism and capitalism.
Are those institutions truly voluntary? - that is participatory - or do they just have the facade of voluntarism; such as the current institutions of wage-labor and representative democracy.
Because if they aren't, then new forms of control and subordination simply replace the old ones.
@MsSexySocialist if you want to see those system just look at some tribal group,everywhere in the world.Its useless to have big society,big cities etc.Human on earth must reduce his population by many.And we must decentralize power to local,community,family,person.BTW I am not a libertarism,but I believe there is something good in any system,libertarism,socialism,capitalism,tribalism,communism etc,the synthesis of all should be a good system if good people are in it.
@mattbell555, I agree to an extent. I believe that the proof is in the pudding when it comes to health care. The biggest, most often used criticism of health care is "well, they have lower cancer survival rates in universial/socialist health care systems" and that is patently false. The studies used were manipulated by using easily survivable diseases here in the U.S and picking out less survivable ones (people who were stage 3-4 instead of stage 1, for example)...
When in reality modern day democratic-socialist-progressive societies have the highest taxes, yet the lowest rates of poverty, NO bankruptcy from medical or educational expenses (because there are none, or virtually none). Yet people are actually more free in France than they are here! Why? because they have more choices! :) so thanks for your post, just wanted to add something to it :) I hope you concur.
@TheBoxingCannabyte So what is your point about what I have said ,I dont understand.Do you mean some system are good for specific things?!?Like the case of health care...
@MsSexySocialist So I think it is futile to debate over capitalism vs socialism as thesis and antithesis.Human must not be divide by those antagonism.We must not be seduce by duality.PEace
How would "socialist" get the means of owning land or production capabilities etc? All land is Private for Ron Paul. How could I make money to buy this land? What? I HAVE TO WORK? Surely that workplace is democratic? WHAT?! ITS NOT! So I would be forced to sell myself(labor power) to make money, all the while be subjugated to the will of a boss who has no interest in me at all? Ron Paul, your form is a joke, and a perversion of REAL libertarianism. Equality is a requirement for true freedom.
He provides a perverse definition of socialism. Libertarian socialists have had theory world's stronger than the crap Paul spews. See Peter Kropotkin's Mutual Aid.
A free society is a democratic society. The only way a democratic society would be possible is through libertarian socialism. Marx, like many socialists, advocated democratic socialism. That isn't unlike social democracy, just a different emphasis. Libertarianism without such social democracy would be corporate tyranny.
The classical argument for free markets holds true in my humble opinion: that totally free individuals by the pursuit of their own well-being will necessarily bring public benefits. However, as the organization of work institutes authority in a manner that benefits those in a position of dominance, it reduces others to be the mere tools by which the former pursue their own well-being and, consequently, the freedom conditions fails to be met.
Tocqueville notes it in saying that "[b]etween the workman and the master there are frequent relations, but no real association" and that "[...] if ever a permanent inequality of conditions and aristocracy again penetrates into the world, it may be predicted that this is the gate by which they will enter." Apparently, in the jungle all are equal, except that some are more equal than others, to paraphrase my favorite line from Lafontaine.
Piss off Paul - if there was a socialist society in a libertarian world - you'd poach out all the workers with short term incentives then once you had them by the balls you'd fuck them for everything thing they were worth. If socialism was so destined to fail why did your racist pig-ignorant oligarchy spend trillions on bringing it down. I suppose you'd say it was a waste of money but you would - wouldn't you - you little shit kickin' Texan half wit
I don't defend things that are imaginary constructs. I defend a man's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I just happen to believe that can't happen in a capitalist regime.
Great argument. People have the right to live in quasi-socialism as it is. Unfortunately, many liberals insist that everyone must live in quasi-socialism. It's like wanting everyone to adopt your religion or listen to the same kind of music you listen to. People feel a need to see a reflection of themselves, it affirms them. I'm not trying to be mean, that's just the way I see it. Not that libertarianism is perfect either, it just seems to be the better pick.
@XxgregfullxX "Unfortunately, many liberals insist that everyone must live in quasi-socialism. It's like wanting everyone to adopt your religion or listen to the same kind of music you listen to." True. What is more, left-liberals need to understand that not every government is good (which should be beyond-obvious). Stalinism is not socialism; but socialism can easily become Stalinism, if the state is run by psychopaths. No, Stalin wasn't a fascist; he used collectivization for 100% control.
First of all, laissez faire capitalism requires government intervention in human affairs. There has to be an impartial judge to decide on who "owns" a property. Property, like national boundaries, is completely imaginary (i.e. an abstraction humans use for conveniently measuring something). There are two types of association of human affairs: horizontal (based in equality) or vertical (based in hierarchy and inequality). Vertical forms of association are always based in hocus pocus.
The word "libertarian" has been used since its invention to refer to a type of socialism until Harry Browne founded "Libertarian Party" in 1973. If you want to start talking 'fascism" let's talk about Ludwig von Mises collaboration with the fascist dictator of Austria Chancellor Dollfuss. Your abuse of the word "libertarian" is as 1984ish as saying war is peace.
Equality is the fundamental condition of social life. Laissez faire capitalists are not opposed to government. They are opposed to socialism. Libertarianism is a form of socialism which is diametrically opposed to laissez faire capitalism. In capitalism you need an interventionist state to protect the property of the plutocracy. During times of economic crisis the plutocracy must use totalitarian means to defend their property.
@perdondaris That's definitely not the position of lassiez faire capitalists. By definition, lassiez faire precludes any form of government intervention. And no, protection of private property simply means protection from theft. You're not against theft are you?
How true this is: If the country were let's say 50 percent socialist, and 50 percent libertarians... then under a libertarian gov. those socialists would still have the freedom to organize themselves and give their wealth to programs for the needy... all have cookie cutter houses, no one would have more wealth than the other... but under socialism everyone would be FORCED to partake in that program whether you liked it or not. Why can't the liberal/socialists leave the others alone?
SOME ECONOMIC HEAD ANSWER THIS (caps to get attention)
Wouldn't a state having socialism in an American libertarian society cause rich people to move to another state, and cause poor people to come to the socialist state, ultimately lowering the standard of living for the entire socialist state?
@415Dub ... Why does a socialist state have to compare itself to a richer capitalist state? Plus there's plenty of socialists that have tons of money. Stephen King for instance thinks he's not paying enough taxes. There will be plenty of people like that in a socialist state. Also... what if america was TOTALLY socialist and the rich people moved to some other country that was less socialist? Let people choose socialism if they want or capitalism if they want. Don't force people.
@urwholefamilydied I don't think the entire country should become socialist. I'd only support socialism at the local level. you can have influence at the local level,but at the federal level it is virtually impossible. You'd be forcing people/states who don't want to partake, into partaking. However if it was locally voted upon for your state, that would be a true representation of the people that live in that particular state. Socialism nationally would be forced among the people.
Yes, a socialist can survive in a capitalst society but a capitalist can not survive in a socialist society. Collectivism and communal living is possible outside of forced participation. Just do it. Problem is, liberals can't do anything without conservatives. They need to force you into their nonsense and waste your money in the process.
Funny that, it's actually the conservatives who need the liberals, because the conservatives need people to do all the thinking for them.
If you're going to make cheap ad hominem attacks, at least make them bear some sort of semblance of reality. Otherwise the smart people will just pwn you for being an idiot.
@AroundSun BOY THIS IS A STUPID COMMENT - the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE IS TRUE. Without the 'nanny state' to bail out capitalism it would have floundered MANY years ago... Collectivism is what humans are - for ALL of human history - 4 MILLION years we have lived in collectivist bands scratching each others backs. Take THE MOST SUCCESSFUL capitalist and plonk him on a desert island and see how well he does... And for the record DEMOCRACY is NOT forced - and ALL alternatives are WAY WORSE... MORON
@StunnedByStupidity Individuals need others to trade things, ideas their love (and their hatred) with. If you love racism and the idea of a hive mind you can go back 4 million years, but I personally perfer progress. We should spit in the face of nature and mock it for all it's primitive traits.
i'm pretty sure that the political battle of XXI century will be not between capitalist/socialist but between libertarian/authoritarian views systems. so true libertarians from both sides should treat each other better, because there's no any contradiction between their worldviews
in fact, i'm pretty amazed to discover that ron paul has so much integrity in him, i thought he's one of these fiscal conservatives hypocrites (i'm not from u.s.)
@wewantsainty89 China is a republic, North Korea is a republic, Cuba is a republic, the USSR was a republic, Venezuela is a republic, Cambodia was is a republic, Nazi Germany was a republic, Franco's Spain was a republic, Fascist Italy was a republic, Iran is a republic.........
Republics don't have to be democratic, in fact most undemocratic states of the world are republics.
@MrGilles1990 and tomatoes don't have to be red. but there is more to the character then that. those are examples of what a republic is. giving me examples don't tell me that there is a difference between the two states. i just know that venezuela is a republic.
@MrGilles1990 Fascist Italy was NOT a Republic, it was a Kingdom, unless you count Salo which wasn't even a real government (the Germans were just running the country at that point).
Libertarians would allow socialists to have a society within a libertarian society, but socialists would not allow a libertarian society in a socialist society. Hmm... What about libertarian socialists? Were do they fit in.
not lazy, they lack a chance. if manufactoring jobs are available most work. but there are only 3 types of manufactoring.- robotic and slavewage labor or both, good paying manufactoring jobs are an endangered species and service jobs are automatable as well. without decent paying jobs and very expensive education cost many are simply stuck. i wont argue for socialism, it clearly works better, but it to is incapable of solving all the worlds problems. we need a resource based economy
@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY A true follower of Marx would be aware of his work on false consciousness and the work of Antonio Gramsci on cultural hegemony. A real Marxist would seek to engage with the politically unaware workers and encourage them to question the status quo.
@LyriXqT This man will lead America into a race war - by getting rid of all welfare, medicare, medicaid, public health- he would throw a match into a tinderbox. No wonder he wants to bring the troops back home.
@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY You're fascist posing has a communist - Marx never used such language to describe the lumpen proletariat - he saw thieves and vagabonds has an inevitable consequence of capitalism - moreover he even saw crime as a form of keynsian stimulation - producing novels, criminologists, locksmiths etc. He only used the word 'parasite' to describe scum sucking semi educated bourgeois vampires like you.
look at norway = highest median income - number 1 in education- no poverty - free health care- more patents per capita - almost no crime-2nd in women elected (sweden1us66)- people live better in prison there than most of our lower middle class and poor - they refuse to send prisoners to the united states - not just because of the death penalty but because its in humane - we would all be better off with socialism - that said there's a better solution to our problems -the resource based economy
@MrIzzyDizzy Scandavian people are not sucess because of "socialism" but because of their work ethic.
There are a productive people, unemployment among NATIVE population there is low. They are wealthy country with a small population (5 million). However if you look at what the cost of living there it is much higher and more expensive goods/rent than it would be in a non-socialist country. In Sweden, their generousity attracted millions of migrants who make up a chunk of those living on welfare.
@MrIzzyDizzy America is too large with too many lazy people for socialism too work. You would just have a generation of people who have never worked & 100% dependent on the state. Which bare a great cost & discourage ppl to work. We see this in the U.K, when in the 80s when the Tories shut down industry instead of building more industry or investing the economy to provide employment both the Socialist Labour & Elite tories gave these ppl hand-outs & let morally decay in their sync estates
And we as a society have already decided to share our wealth to build highways and bridges, infrastructure, schools, dams, explore space, provide for defense... and now we have people like Ron Paul and Tea Partiers superficially dismiss these things as socialist intrusions on their "freedoms." They want to "keep their money" when it is the fact they live in such a society that gives them the ability to have earned it in the first place.
Ron Paul has never heard of, or refuses to acknowledge the existence of, libertarian socialism. This is pure information designed to confuse basic political theory for short term gain. Paul is as bad as the rest.
Fill me in, I'm puzzled how socialism can work at the best of times. Libertarian socialism is a contradiction in terms, socialism, which is implicitly tyrannical, can coerce only in the presence of the state or syndicate, yet Chomsky advocates an organised co-ordinated society consisting of workers themselves.
Have you thought about the logistical nightmare in making this happen or the quelling of power structures required in order to maintain worker control of society?
@Samsgarden It's only a contradiction because your understanding is based off of Paul and other Americans redefining the words. People like Paul purposely warp their meaning to rewrite history and confuse people.
Socialism only has to do with economic policy and libertarianism only defines social policy. Libertarian socialism is totally opposed to state socialism and central planning. I refuse to debate semantics. The terms do not mean what you think they mean.
Paul represents the Austrian movement economically speaking which is free market capitalism & property rights -something pooh poohed by socialists. I don't believe one can distinguish between economics and social matters, the two are inextricably linked.
Leaving definitions aside, my criticism stands. Socialism is a coercive ideology, I will retract this when somebody explains how worker owned means of production and wealth redistribution can occur autonomously, state or no state.
@Samsgarden I would agree they are linked as well, but when you're talking about the definition of these words it's important to understand the differences. In fact, capitalism is inherently hierarchical thus I conciser it incompatible with anarchism since the word anarchism literally means without hierarchy.
Capitalism is hierarchical, as are most social paradigms-including the species & living things, thus my scepticism about socialism and this romance with nihilism and utopia. I fail to see how socialism is possible by any stretch of the imagination. It's the forceful removal of property & wealth & this perverse idea of equality and uniformity. Socialist's discredit capitalism but I think it's a system of basic human rights. keep in mind that I'm not referring to today's system.
Incidentally, libertarian socialism is a synonym for communism.
libertarianism or anarchism is freedom from government. Strictly, the Austrian school is anarcho-capitalist. There is no contradiction in this definition.
The real issue here is authoritarianism vs. libertarianism. Coercive socialism is authoritarian, whereas voluntary socialism is libertarian...same goes for capitalism. If you want to be exploited by a capitalist rather than cut out the middle man and run the work place yourself, along with your fellow workers, I'm not going to put a gun to your head and stop you because I'm not an authoritarian, even though I don't necessarily agree with your chosen form of economics/employment. Libertarians
@wcropp1 on the left and right need to unite against authoritarianism in all its forms. Where the issue becomes complex, however, is when you start discussing democratic-state socialism vs. lawless laissez-faire corporatism. The welfare state, IMO, has been a reaction by the workers against corporate personhood, business subsidizing, etc. In other words, "if business is going to be bailed out by the government, why shouldn't I?" Which is hard to argue with. The problem with right-libertarianism
@wcropp1 is, at least IMO, that some forms of it, i.e. the Libertarian Party, does not call into question the existence of corporations, which is a total game changer, along with other forms of pseudo-statist collusion between government and private industry. Perhaps eliminating the state would end the existence of corporations, but in the short term you cannot end welfare for poor people unless you also end it for big business. Politics has been reduced to a power struggle between the rich and
@wcropp1 the poor over government power, which is tyranny when done by the business community and a less than ideal solution to a serious problem for working people. IMO we need to reduce the role of the stole but not without also calling into question certain aspects of our economic institutions and only then can we seriously discuss cooperation between libertarians on the left and right. Corporatism vs. state-socialism isn't working.
@777Atheist Originally it was ONLY libertarian socialism, but the only real difference is how you view private property. I think it goes against human nature to do away with all private property-- it's like if you took down a saber tooth tiger, you get the benefit of using it as a resource, free to share it or not. I think it violates the no coercion principle if the rest of the tribe decides to kill you because you keep it for yourself and your family. Owning essentials is fine, but I think we
True Libertarianism is Socialism Mr. Ron Paul. the meaning of Libertarianism has been changed in this country. Read Ron Paul supporters about Libertarian Socialism, the TRUE Libertarianism.
Hitler never hurt anyone before coming into power even during his campaign he didn't hurt a fly. So why does society hate him so much? I mean people were tolerant and who cares what he said as long as he didn't follow through right?
Also, Ron Paul doesn't understand socialism. Socialists see private property as it is - nothing more than a social rule, which allows a privileged use of territory and resources by the individuals. Since at some point for the sake of progressive and just society, any privilege must be abolished - so does the even limited rule of the private property as it is now. In the future, the very idea that the land, forests or iron ore can belong someone will be absurd.
@timfidotru Watch the video again. When he speaks of socialism he mentions collective ownership of the land. Collective ownership is indistinguishable from no one owning the land.
Agreed. People forget about Left Libertarianism/Libertarian Socialism--which, hilariously enough, is where the term "Libertarian" came from...mostly from the anti-Stalin movement that recognized him for the monster that he was.
LOL funny Ron Paul you steal the word libertarianism, to make it mean anarcho-capitalism. Libertarianism and anarchism are inherently socialist. You cannot have a free society with a small government unless it is socialist. So that's a stupid stamp for Ron Paul. Anarcho-capitalism will never work!! Anarcho-communism will!
Right on Ron. I support a more free society. Greater liberty, equality, and democracy. I would like to see autonomous communities with the state and federal governments playing a very small role. Local communities would form partnerships to provide for education, health and social welfare between local governments, charities, nonprofits, churches, etc. Mutual banks and credit unions could be set up to provide low interest loans for employee owned cooperatives, partnerships, etc.
First, the labels of all political ideologies have been rendered useless. I technically call myself a Libertarian Socialist but you can just as easily say anarchist. Now, obviously Ron Paul doesn't go to the extent that I feel, mainly that states in general and most privatization are violent and an assault on our dignity. He has one important similarity though, we don't have to impose any system on everybody. Local communities make these decisions. The state has become our parents.
Individualism is the best system out there, it is the modern realization thats been compiled from thousands of years of research and evidence. Under individualism Rome prospered and became the envy of the world, but sneaky backstabbing politicians began the justification of each socialistic act after another. Higher taxes, then collective ownership, then boom! Oligarchy under the Caesers. Same thing is happening to us with Social Security, National Healthcare, etc. We are a socialism now.
You couldn't set up a socialist society in a libertarian country because the buisiness elites would never allow it. The concerntration of capital in the economy gives disproportionate influence in the democratic process to a few. To parody paul:
YOU Just try and set up a socialist society in a libertarian country and take care of your self. THEY wont allow it because they need you and your monney to survive.
He can only the the state half the state-capitalist power structure. It all must go.
Except in a TRULY socialist society, you DO have the right to reject socialism.
An example of a truly socialist society would be the cooperative economies of the Spanish Revolution. Anarcho-syndicalism defined those societies, yet non-collectivist lived and worked in the same communities as collectivist. The two groups lived together in harmony.
socialism means participatory control of the means of production. there is nothing inherently wrong with a single person working in exclusion but so long as there are externalities and abuses of reasorse that affect others, those who are implicated deserve a say in the matter that is proportionate to how those desitions affect them. so to sya that a socialist hegemony undermines the individual is fallacious. although i agree with the critique of state socialism.
Thank you Mr Paul. This is a point we really need to drive home. The communist commenter here can't even address it . Why can't these #holes leave us alone? Go make your utopia over there with likeminded people and let the rest of us be free. We don't want your taxes and we don't want your help. Paul said it best here, they need us because their system does not work. It only works until the money and labor they can extract out of people is exhausted.
@skinu How would you allocate resources w/out capital? In otherwords, w/out prices, profits, loses and wages how can you accurately provide to the people what they want & need? How would you know whether the people want more production of laptops or the new iPad w/out profit and lose? Shouldn't the fisherman who risks his life on the open ocean get more then the guy who wraps fried fish sandwiches?
We don't need to stop people from profiting once a libertarian socialist society is established because most people do not want to be enslaved, if people will start their own capitalist society? let them be, as long as they do not threaten the existing libertarian society. But I cannot imagine anyone who wants to work in an undemocratic (=capitalist) company when they've worked in a democratic workplace, the only people who'd then want capitalism are those whom have private ownership.
@GodOfTheInternets Here's the problem with a "democratic workplace": noone would vote to lay themselves off at a company that is producing an unpopular product. material and labor would be misallocated. Imagine you work in a "democratic workplace" at a typewriter factory, would you vote to fire yourself and close shop, or keep on producing something noone wants anymore just to save your job?
That's not at all a valid argument because we can see how it works in societies today. In the Mondragon Coperation we see that the workers generally vote for cutting wages instead of downsizing and this coperation--controlled by workers--is a billion dollar company with over 50,000 employees, that's way bigger than the average company. And if a democratic workplace produces products that no-one wants then it will go bankrupt, just like a capitalist company, so what's the difference?
Plus, I'd like to see a moneyless society, in other words a society where no company could go bankrupt because it is outcompeted and if a certain company doesn't produce anything useless they will simply be excluded from the participatory planning system which 'forces' them to find a new job or produce other goods.
@GodOfTheInternets You can't separate society and money. People will just find a new medium of exchange. Prisons are moneyless societies, so what do prisoners do? They make cigarettes their units of money.
A "participatory planning system" would be a central economic planning system that would ignore consumers' (society's) needs and wants, and replace profit and loss indicators (consumers voting with their wallets) with the guess work of some bureaucracy to allocate labor and resources.
A participatory planning system would not be "central", because as the name implies anyone can directly--or indirectly--participate in the planning process and the wants and needs of society are directly satisfied, not like as in the state central planned economy. The nickname of this particular system is decentralized planning. The allocation of recources and such would not require a lot of bureaucracy since it is not a centrally planned economy.
@GodOfTheInternets A decentralized planning system already exists, it's called a free market. It's also very democratic. I "vote" for Coke over Pepsi with my wallet. If more of my neighbors "vote" for Coke, Coke allocates more resources to my area, and Pepsi allocates less.
If you change to a cost-free ballot, then I will always vote for Kobe beef prime rib & Maine lobster for dinner, & working an easy job 2 hours a week. There's no accounting for scarcity, or incentive to work hard or improve.
I shook my head rigorously because of your obliviousness. You mix up two things. One, a participatory planning system as I describe is only neccessary if money were to be abolished. Two, I was talking about democratic workplaces not a democratic exchange system which you talk about.
@MrPloppy1 to follow your logic , when capital flows from one country to another, they are voting in its currency, in its bonds, and ultimatly it's government's policy.
They will attack countries that try to help the poor, countries that insist that the workers get a fair share of the wealth that they created, and move to states with big agressive militaries that police their intrests in which .
If this is a democracy, where's my say in all this?
Listening to this one is like having a V-8 moment. It's a no-brainer! I'd just today been mulling over this seeming quandary.of Socialism and Libertarianism ... and BAM! There this is. THANKS bunches for having this one up.
In the last few years their ideas have been regaining popularity. At the end of 1999 Marx was voted the 'greatest thinker of the millennium' in a BBC online poll. Even some capitalist commentators and Wall Street traders have reread Marx and realized how clearly he described capitalism as it is today.
It does not matter what large percentages of foolish people believe or do not believe. The reality is that labor side economic theory is laughable. Marx could not even explain the value of art in accord with the economic theory that he himself developed.
In The Communist Manifesto, and later works such as Marx's Capital, they were the first to give a thorough and scientific analysis of the laws and workings of capitalist society: why it results in the polarization of wealth and, vitally, how it can be overthrown.
Over 150 years ago Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto. It has become the most influential political pamphlet of all time. In 1999 a new edition entered the bestsellers list. Marx and Engels were the founders of scientific socialism.
Capitalism's abject failure to provide the vast bulk of humanity with the material means for a dignified existence is not only due to the greed of individual billionaires or the failure of politicians.If it were, changing society would be a far simpler question of reforming the excesses of capitalism and dealing with the bad apples. But inequality and poverty are part of the fundamental nature of capitalist society.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
THE SOCIALIST PARTY strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control - a non-racist, classless, feminist socialist society... where working people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically-controlled public agencies; where full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work
Leaving aside the utter naivete of this party platform, you appear to have completely missed Ron Paul's point. In a Libertarian society, you would be perfectly free to have a perfect socialist society in your community. However in your perfect socialist society, I and my friends would NOT be free to live in our own Libertarian community. We would allow you to be free and to live as you choose. Whereas you would NOT allow us the same liberty.
The working class is in a key and central position to fight back against the ruling capitalist class and its power. The working class is the major force worldwide that can lead the way to a socialist future - to a real radical democracy from below.
fight back against the ruling "capitalist" class???? lol. Are you serious? There is NOTHING capitalistic about the elite lawmakers. FIRST step to getting things back in order is for you (and the rest of the anti-capitalist europeans) is to learn the DIFFERENCE between Capitalism and CORPORATISM.
There is NOTHING good about socialism. Socialism uses FORCE to sustain their ideology.
NO THANK!!! I prefer FREEDOM where one can INSPIRE others to give to the less fortunate BY CHOICE!!!!
Nothing capitalist about elite-law makers? The law guarentees private property ownership, capitalist law right there. Socialism does not necessarily use force.
Ron Paul wants a free society but doesn't advocate anarcho-syndicalism? So he doesn't want a free society. He wants a society that is corporate controlled, don't tell me "he wants to get rid of federal reserve, so hes anti-corporation". No doesn't work like that. He wants people to be exploited under corporate owners. When someone wants everything privatized in a hierarchical structure, they are capitalist. In fact pro-capitalism comes to mind. Ron Paul wants private tyranny.
TheBroadribb 3 weeks ago
It's actually not quite correct to say we need their wealth. They also need the common workers and the purchasing power of the consumers. If anything they both need each other on some level, but if the poor could free up their state's resources they would fare far better without than the Rich than the other way around. Not everyone Rich is hard working, and "wealth creator" is little more than a myth.
TakeshiAndTheKid 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AStarSpangledGirl Ron Paul is a Friedman/Rand-style Libertarian. A core tenant of that ideology is that Capitalism is a necessary social condition for freedom. While Socialism doesn't equate volunteerism, it doesn't inherently prevent it either. The method of economic distribution is only related to conditions of social organization under models of propaganda, unless that method explicitly requires some form of State power to defend property rights.
jasondelauro 1 month ago
Comment removed
jasondelauro 1 month ago
Comment removed
jasondelauro 1 month ago
-generally.
PositivelyBored 1 month ago
Without straw men libertarians ARE FUCKED. The JOINT highest earners in the US are the right wing business people and the highly educated LIBERALS. It is NOT the case that the right have the money and the left NOT... The states that have MOST government handouts ARE THE REPUBLICAN STATES. THE ENGINES OF CREATIVITY and EDUCATION are the LIBERALS! And 92% of ALL Americans are 'socialist' (social democrats). So EXCEPT FOR EVERYTHING PAUL CLAIMS he is a fucking bigot and WRONG!
StunnedByStupidity 1 month ago 3
Ron Paul as usual spouts nonsense with no basis in reality.
Contrary to what he says, a capitalist society COULD exist in a stateless socialist society.
Libertarian Socialism is conceived politically and economically as a free confederation of autonomous self-governing communities which are voluntarily networked together.
If any community or group wanted to secede from the confederation and institute wage-labor, class domination, and all that fun stuff, they'd be free to do so.
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago 12
@MsSexySocialist Ummm...tell me when Dr Paul mentioned CAPITALISM??? Secondly...
The fact that you are equating Capitalism with a Free Society makes you lose ALL credibility right off the bat.
Also...you might want to revisit Wikipedia and learn the meaning of "Socialism".
I think you might be confusing "Socialism" with Voluntarism. Just saying.....
I would say the only one spouting nonsense is YOU darling.
AStarSpangledGirl 1 month ago
@AStarSpangledGirl
If you have the right to your money, then it's a capitalist society. That's pretty fundamental. Also, I think that you are unaware of what socialism is. It's merely pooled wealth and resources. It's an economic system not a political system.
A corporation is socialized, for heaven's sake. It's just private.
This is why Paul fails; he is still in elementary school when it comes to this stuff. "We're all Austrians now," eh? He'd have a heart attack if he understood it.
Lodatzor 1 month ago
@AStarSpangledGirl
lol Are you seriously trying to imply that Ron Paul isn't a capitalist?
Also, I don't use wikipedia as a source of information, you should trying reading an actual book on political science sometime if you want to know what "socialism" actually is.
And "voluntarism" is a kind of vulgar possessive-individualist fantasy popular with spoiled upper-middle-class teenagers.
Nice try = )
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago 5
@MsSexySocialist Exactly.
MiasmaResonance 3 weeks ago
@MsSexySocialist I'm a poor teenager so I guess you can't offend me now.
quidnick 1 week ago
@quidnick
O. . .kay
I never exactly set out to offend anybody by simply expressing my opinions but if you are then I'm afraid I can't say more than offense is something that's taken, not given.
Also, on the subject of nature, what you're espousing is a dominative relationship towards nature informed by an anthropocentric fallacy- this is especially evident in your use of the anthropological term "primitive" to describe it.
Humans, and all the progress we've made, are PART of nature.
MsSexySocialist 1 week ago
@MsSexySocialist Have you read Adam Smith? And what the fuck is a capitalist?
fani5000 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fani5000
Yes. He was a great thinker . . . for the 18th century.
The fact that many today still hold up his ideas as relevent to our current economic situation is just absurd. Not to say he would have approved of the system his ideals are frequently brought up to defend.
As to the question "what the fuck is a capitalist?", I would say very simply that a capitalist is, well, someone who supports capitalism. That is, a "market economy with private ownership of the means of production".
MsSexySocialist 1 week ago
@AStarSpangledGirl I think you are confusing socialism with state capitalism. Socialism is anarchy
SocialismOrSlavery 1 month ago
@SocialismOrSlavery
The problem is , one side will use the more arcane European/Eastern definition, the other uses the U.S. definition.
You're all arguing two completely different things.
Libertarianism in the U.S. is capitalist conservatism, a capitalist system of markets and economies with minimal state. Libertarianism elsewhere is anti-capitalist, voluntary socialism which is also minimal state.
PositivelyBored 1 month ago
@AStarSpangledGirl Nice job star! You would think these socialists would look to the history of their failed ideology & realize just because it sounded great in their womens studies & sociology classes in college doesn't mean it actually works.
joe035 1 month ago
@AStarSpangledGirl, excuse me, but have you read any of Noam Chonsky's work? Because it seems ike you don't get what MsSexySocialist was trying to say, also, ending with the condescending "YOU darling." Just makes you come across as pretentious and therefore it means you don't really care if your message gets across to this person or not, at least it seems so
TheBoxingCannabyte 1 week ago
@AStarSpangledGirl Since you said to go to wikipedia I did. First sentence, "Socialism is an economic system characterized by the social ownership of the means of production." Paul uses it in totally the wrong sense like the majority of all conservatives do by relating it to government tyranny over business. All socialism really is is democracy extended into the industrial sphere. The public workers would democratically run the business' they work for instead of being subjected to labor division
JPizzle1490 1 week ago
@AStarSpangledGirl So, a free society is could certainly exist in a socialist society.
JPizzle1490 1 week ago
@JPizzle1490 Not taking sides but just letting you know that wikipedia has become a more legitimate site. You have to cite sources before posting new information and if it's bullshit they usually take it off
MegaLikeasomebody 1 day ago
@MegaLikeasomebody Oh sure, I was only citing because the guy said, "Go revisit wikipedia." And, I was agreeing with wikipedias definition. I like wikipedia just fine. In fact, it's becoming more and more common that college professors will except wikipedia as a source because, generally, it's a good one!!! :)
JPizzle1490 1 day ago
@JPizzle1490 *accept
JPizzle1490 1 day ago
@MsSexySocialist Listen to your self, do you work for Fox News?
1styankeefan 1 month ago
@1styankeefan
Did you intend this comment for someone else? ^^
Also, grammatically that should be "yourself" not "your self".
Just sayin'
MsSexySocialist 1 month ago
@1styankeefan More like MSNBC
danielc121162 1 week ago
@MsSexySocialist capitalism always leads to concentration of wealth,and ultimately power.Free society is not capitalism.Free society is more likely voluntarism anf free will basis system,like trading service and goods.
mattbell555 2 weeks ago
@mattbell555
But of course it all depends on the kinds of structures and institutions you have in a theoretical society that has surpassed both statism and capitalism.
Are those institutions truly voluntary? - that is participatory - or do they just have the facade of voluntarism; such as the current institutions of wage-labor and representative democracy.
Because if they aren't, then new forms of control and subordination simply replace the old ones.
MsSexySocialist 1 week ago
@MsSexySocialist if you want to see those system just look at some tribal group,everywhere in the world.Its useless to have big society,big cities etc.Human on earth must reduce his population by many.And we must decentralize power to local,community,family,person.BTW I am not a libertarism,but I believe there is something good in any system,libertarism,socialism,capitalism,tribalism,communism etc,the synthesis of all should be a good system if good people are in it.
mattbell555 1 week ago
@mattbell555, I agree to an extent. I believe that the proof is in the pudding when it comes to health care. The biggest, most often used criticism of health care is "well, they have lower cancer survival rates in universial/socialist health care systems" and that is patently false. The studies used were manipulated by using easily survivable diseases here in the U.S and picking out less survivable ones (people who were stage 3-4 instead of stage 1, for example)...
TheBoxingCannabyte 1 week ago
@mattbell555-and saying "AH-HAH! See?! see?!"
When in reality modern day democratic-socialist-progressive societies have the highest taxes, yet the lowest rates of poverty, NO bankruptcy from medical or educational expenses (because there are none, or virtually none). Yet people are actually more free in France than they are here! Why? because they have more choices! :) so thanks for your post, just wanted to add something to it :) I hope you concur.
TheBoxingCannabyte 1 week ago
@TheBoxingCannabyte So what is your point about what I have said ,I dont understand.Do you mean some system are good for specific things?!?Like the case of health care...
mattbell555 1 week ago
@MsSexySocialist So I think it is futile to debate over capitalism vs socialism as thesis and antithesis.Human must not be divide by those antagonism.We must not be seduce by duality.PEace
mattbell555 1 week ago
How would "socialist" get the means of owning land or production capabilities etc? All land is Private for Ron Paul. How could I make money to buy this land? What? I HAVE TO WORK? Surely that workplace is democratic? WHAT?! ITS NOT! So I would be forced to sell myself(labor power) to make money, all the while be subjugated to the will of a boss who has no interest in me at all? Ron Paul, your form is a joke, and a perversion of REAL libertarianism. Equality is a requirement for true freedom.
Artamentous 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
society is socialism, all people in society are socialist.
Social interaction is Socialist, Socialism
.
People must stop Social Interaction, its Socialism
.
hadith04 2 months ago
@RationalistViewpoint Restrictions are not free nor happy.
TIMJIM400 2 months ago
@RationalistViewpoint A mixture is not capitalistic.
TIMJIM400 2 months ago
@TIMJIM400
Then it's not socialistic, either.
You're basically just presenting a mirror image of the 'we've never tried REAL communism yet!' argument.
Lodatzor 1 month ago
He provides a perverse definition of socialism. Libertarian socialists have had theory world's stronger than the crap Paul spews. See Peter Kropotkin's Mutual Aid.
zapatista512 2 months ago 3
A free society is a democratic society. The only way a democratic society would be possible is through libertarian socialism. Marx, like many socialists, advocated democratic socialism. That isn't unlike social democracy, just a different emphasis. Libertarianism without such social democracy would be corporate tyranny.
MarmaladeINFP 2 months ago
@MarmaladeINFP
The classical argument for free markets holds true in my humble opinion: that totally free individuals by the pursuit of their own well-being will necessarily bring public benefits. However, as the organization of work institutes authority in a manner that benefits those in a position of dominance, it reduces others to be the mere tools by which the former pursue their own well-being and, consequently, the freedom conditions fails to be met.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@MarmaladeINFP
Tocqueville notes it in saying that "[b]etween the workman and the master there are frequent relations, but no real association" and that "[...] if ever a permanent inequality of conditions and aristocracy again penetrates into the world, it may be predicted that this is the gate by which they will enter." Apparently, in the jungle all are equal, except that some are more equal than others, to paraphrase my favorite line from Lafontaine.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
Piss off Paul - if there was a socialist society in a libertarian world - you'd poach out all the workers with short term incentives then once you had them by the balls you'd fuck them for everything thing they were worth. If socialism was so destined to fail why did your racist pig-ignorant oligarchy spend trillions on bringing it down. I suppose you'd say it was a waste of money but you would - wouldn't you - you little shit kickin' Texan half wit
32peartree 3 months ago
I don't defend things that are imaginary constructs. I defend a man's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I just happen to believe that can't happen in a capitalist regime.
perdondaris 3 months ago
libertarianism became obsolite along with hunting and gathering
grow up and deal with it
U5K0 4 months ago
Great argument. People have the right to live in quasi-socialism as it is. Unfortunately, many liberals insist that everyone must live in quasi-socialism. It's like wanting everyone to adopt your religion or listen to the same kind of music you listen to. People feel a need to see a reflection of themselves, it affirms them. I'm not trying to be mean, that's just the way I see it. Not that libertarianism is perfect either, it just seems to be the better pick.
XxgregfullxX 4 months ago
@XxgregfullxX "Unfortunately, many liberals insist that everyone must live in quasi-socialism. It's like wanting everyone to adopt your religion or listen to the same kind of music you listen to." True. What is more, left-liberals need to understand that not every government is good (which should be beyond-obvious). Stalinism is not socialism; but socialism can easily become Stalinism, if the state is run by psychopaths. No, Stalin wasn't a fascist; he used collectivization for 100% control.
amamerc 3 months ago
First of all, laissez faire capitalism requires government intervention in human affairs. There has to be an impartial judge to decide on who "owns" a property. Property, like national boundaries, is completely imaginary (i.e. an abstraction humans use for conveniently measuring something). There are two types of association of human affairs: horizontal (based in equality) or vertical (based in hierarchy and inequality). Vertical forms of association are always based in hocus pocus.
perdondaris 4 months ago
The word "libertarian" has been used since its invention to refer to a type of socialism until Harry Browne founded "Libertarian Party" in 1973. If you want to start talking 'fascism" let's talk about Ludwig von Mises collaboration with the fascist dictator of Austria Chancellor Dollfuss. Your abuse of the word "libertarian" is as 1984ish as saying war is peace.
perdondaris 4 months ago
Equality is the fundamental condition of social life. Laissez faire capitalists are not opposed to government. They are opposed to socialism. Libertarianism is a form of socialism which is diametrically opposed to laissez faire capitalism. In capitalism you need an interventionist state to protect the property of the plutocracy. During times of economic crisis the plutocracy must use totalitarian means to defend their property.
perdondaris 4 months ago
@perdondaris That's definitely not the position of lassiez faire capitalists. By definition, lassiez faire precludes any form of government intervention. And no, protection of private property simply means protection from theft. You're not against theft are you?
truevoice08 4 months ago
@perdondaris Well, it's nice to know that socialists don't defend property. That puts an end to socialism once and for all. If only!
MillionthUsername 3 months ago
@shortywheat I'd say its the opposite way around with the numbers.
415Dub 4 months ago
How true this is: If the country were let's say 50 percent socialist, and 50 percent libertarians... then under a libertarian gov. those socialists would still have the freedom to organize themselves and give their wealth to programs for the needy... all have cookie cutter houses, no one would have more wealth than the other... but under socialism everyone would be FORCED to partake in that program whether you liked it or not. Why can't the liberal/socialists leave the others alone?
urwholefamilydied 4 months ago
SOME ECONOMIC HEAD ANSWER THIS (caps to get attention)
Wouldn't a state having socialism in an American libertarian society cause rich people to move to another state, and cause poor people to come to the socialist state, ultimately lowering the standard of living for the entire socialist state?
415Dub 4 months ago
@415Dub ... Why does a socialist state have to compare itself to a richer capitalist state? Plus there's plenty of socialists that have tons of money. Stephen King for instance thinks he's not paying enough taxes. There will be plenty of people like that in a socialist state. Also... what if america was TOTALLY socialist and the rich people moved to some other country that was less socialist? Let people choose socialism if they want or capitalism if they want. Don't force people.
urwholefamilydied 4 months ago
@urwholefamilydied I don't think the entire country should become socialist. I'd only support socialism at the local level. you can have influence at the local level,but at the federal level it is virtually impossible. You'd be forcing people/states who don't want to partake, into partaking. However if it was locally voted upon for your state, that would be a true representation of the people that live in that particular state. Socialism nationally would be forced among the people.
415Dub 4 months ago
@415Dub I actually think I totally agree with you 100%. It would be a great experiment. And if you don't like the local laws then move out.
urwholefamilydied 4 months ago
Yes, a socialist can survive in a capitalst society but a capitalist can not survive in a socialist society. Collectivism and communal living is possible outside of forced participation. Just do it. Problem is, liberals can't do anything without conservatives. They need to force you into their nonsense and waste your money in the process.
AroundSun 4 months ago 2
@AroundSun Where's the equality?
TIMJIM400 2 months ago
@AroundSun Where's the equality?
TIMJIM400 2 months ago
@AroundSun
Funny that, it's actually the conservatives who need the liberals, because the conservatives need people to do all the thinking for them.
If you're going to make cheap ad hominem attacks, at least make them bear some sort of semblance of reality. Otherwise the smart people will just pwn you for being an idiot.
Lodatzor 1 month ago
@AroundSun BOY THIS IS A STUPID COMMENT - the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE IS TRUE. Without the 'nanny state' to bail out capitalism it would have floundered MANY years ago... Collectivism is what humans are - for ALL of human history - 4 MILLION years we have lived in collectivist bands scratching each others backs. Take THE MOST SUCCESSFUL capitalist and plonk him on a desert island and see how well he does... And for the record DEMOCRACY is NOT forced - and ALL alternatives are WAY WORSE... MORON
StunnedByStupidity 1 month ago
@StunnedByStupidity Individuals need others to trade things, ideas their love (and their hatred) with. If you love racism and the idea of a hive mind you can go back 4 million years, but I personally perfer progress. We should spit in the face of nature and mock it for all it's primitive traits.
quidnick 1 week ago
@quidnick See your ideology is SO insane you have to reject your humanity - you are clearly deeply disturbed - but goes with the territory eh?
StunnedByStupidity 1 week ago
i'm pretty sure that the political battle of XXI century will be not between capitalist/socialist but between libertarian/authoritarian views systems. so true libertarians from both sides should treat each other better, because there's no any contradiction between their worldviews
in fact, i'm pretty amazed to discover that ron paul has so much integrity in him, i thought he's one of these fiscal conservatives hypocrites (i'm not from u.s.)
ilovedlife 5 months ago
@tjm8787 A republic is a form of democracy. It would be more accurate to say, we live in a republic, not a pure democracy.
CorrespondingReality 5 months ago
@tjm8787 whats the differance?
wewantsainty89 5 months ago
@wewantsainty89 China is a republic, North Korea is a republic, Cuba is a republic, the USSR was a republic, Venezuela is a republic, Cambodia was is a republic, Nazi Germany was a republic, Franco's Spain was a republic, Fascist Italy was a republic, Iran is a republic.........
Republics don't have to be democratic, in fact most undemocratic states of the world are republics.
MrGilles1990 5 months ago
@MrGilles1990 and tomatoes don't have to be red. but there is more to the character then that. those are examples of what a republic is. giving me examples don't tell me that there is a difference between the two states. i just know that venezuela is a republic.
wewantsainty89 5 months ago
@MrGilles1990 Fascist Italy was NOT a Republic, it was a Kingdom, unless you count Salo which wasn't even a real government (the Germans were just running the country at that point).
DerBlitzStag 3 months ago
@DerBlitzStag Sorry my mistake.
MrGilles1990 3 months ago
@MrGilles1990 Your point still stands :)
DerBlitzStag 3 months ago
@DerBlitzStag Where's the king?
TIMJIM400 2 months ago
@TIMJIM400 Then? Roma. Now? Switzerland
DerBlitzStag 2 months ago
Libertarians would allow socialists to have a society within a libertarian society, but socialists would not allow a libertarian society in a socialist society. Hmm... What about libertarian socialists? Were do they fit in.
ZombiBuddy 6 months ago
@ZombiBuddy Where do capitalist communists fit in?
MrGilles1990 5 months ago
not lazy, they lack a chance. if manufactoring jobs are available most work. but there are only 3 types of manufactoring.- robotic and slavewage labor or both, good paying manufactoring jobs are an endangered species and service jobs are automatable as well. without decent paying jobs and very expensive education cost many are simply stuck. i wont argue for socialism, it clearly works better, but it to is incapable of solving all the worlds problems. we need a resource based economy
MrIzzyDizzy 6 months ago
all non-radicalized workers are good for is bludging off-on the dole. They are NOT Marxist workers but parasites
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 6 months ago 3
@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY A true follower of Marx would be aware of his work on false consciousness and the work of Antonio Gramsci on cultural hegemony. A real Marxist would seek to engage with the politically unaware workers and encourage them to question the status quo.
LyriXqT 3 months ago
@LyriXqT This man will lead America into a race war - by getting rid of all welfare, medicare, medicaid, public health- he would throw a match into a tinderbox. No wonder he wants to bring the troops back home.
32peartree 3 months ago
@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY You're fascist posing has a communist - Marx never used such language to describe the lumpen proletariat - he saw thieves and vagabonds has an inevitable consequence of capitalism - moreover he even saw crime as a form of keynsian stimulation - producing novels, criminologists, locksmiths etc. He only used the word 'parasite' to describe scum sucking semi educated bourgeois vampires like you.
32peartree 3 months ago
look at norway = highest median income - number 1 in education- no poverty - free health care- more patents per capita - almost no crime-2nd in women elected (sweden1us66)- people live better in prison there than most of our lower middle class and poor - they refuse to send prisoners to the united states - not just because of the death penalty but because its in humane - we would all be better off with socialism - that said there's a better solution to our problems -the resource based economy
MrIzzyDizzy 6 months ago
@MrIzzyDizzy Scandavian people are not sucess because of "socialism" but because of their work ethic.
There are a productive people, unemployment among NATIVE population there is low. They are wealthy country with a small population (5 million). However if you look at what the cost of living there it is much higher and more expensive goods/rent than it would be in a non-socialist country. In Sweden, their generousity attracted millions of migrants who make up a chunk of those living on welfare.
LibertarianUK 6 months ago
@MrIzzyDizzy America is too large with too many lazy people for socialism too work. You would just have a generation of people who have never worked & 100% dependent on the state. Which bare a great cost & discourage ppl to work. We see this in the U.K, when in the 80s when the Tories shut down industry instead of building more industry or investing the economy to provide employment both the Socialist Labour & Elite tories gave these ppl hand-outs & let morally decay in their sync estates
LibertarianUK 6 months ago
Ron Paul is not a Libertarian Socialist. Don't confuse The Libertarian Party with real Libertarianism.
djamorpheus 6 months ago
And we as a society have already decided to share our wealth to build highways and bridges, infrastructure, schools, dams, explore space, provide for defense... and now we have people like Ron Paul and Tea Partiers superficially dismiss these things as socialist intrusions on their "freedoms." They want to "keep their money" when it is the fact they live in such a society that gives them the ability to have earned it in the first place.
mapmanic 6 months ago
Ron Paul has never heard of, or refuses to acknowledge the existence of, libertarian socialism. This is pure information designed to confuse basic political theory for short term gain. Paul is as bad as the rest.
JiffyNo0b 6 months ago
@JiffyNo0b
Fill me in, I'm puzzled how socialism can work at the best of times. Libertarian socialism is a contradiction in terms, socialism, which is implicitly tyrannical, can coerce only in the presence of the state or syndicate, yet Chomsky advocates an organised co-ordinated society consisting of workers themselves.
Have you thought about the logistical nightmare in making this happen or the quelling of power structures required in order to maintain worker control of society?
space...
Samsgarden 6 months ago
@Samsgarden It's only a contradiction because your understanding is based off of Paul and other Americans redefining the words. People like Paul purposely warp their meaning to rewrite history and confuse people.
Socialism only has to do with economic policy and libertarianism only defines social policy. Libertarian socialism is totally opposed to state socialism and central planning. I refuse to debate semantics. The terms do not mean what you think they mean.
JiffyNo0b 6 months ago
@JiffyNo0b
Paul represents the Austrian movement economically speaking which is free market capitalism & property rights -something pooh poohed by socialists. I don't believe one can distinguish between economics and social matters, the two are inextricably linked.
Leaving definitions aside, my criticism stands. Socialism is a coercive ideology, I will retract this when somebody explains how worker owned means of production and wealth redistribution can occur autonomously, state or no state.
Samsgarden 6 months ago
@Samsgarden I would agree they are linked as well, but when you're talking about the definition of these words it's important to understand the differences. In fact, capitalism is inherently hierarchical thus I conciser it incompatible with anarchism since the word anarchism literally means without hierarchy.
JiffyNo0b 6 months ago
@JiffyNo0b
Capitalism is hierarchical, as are most social paradigms-including the species & living things, thus my scepticism about socialism and this romance with nihilism and utopia. I fail to see how socialism is possible by any stretch of the imagination. It's the forceful removal of property & wealth & this perverse idea of equality and uniformity. Socialist's discredit capitalism but I think it's a system of basic human rights. keep in mind that I'm not referring to today's system.
Samsgarden 6 months ago
@JiffyNo0b
Incidentally, libertarian socialism is a synonym for communism.
libertarianism or anarchism is freedom from government. Strictly, the Austrian school is anarcho-capitalist. There is no contradiction in this definition.
Samsgarden 6 months ago
The real issue here is authoritarianism vs. libertarianism. Coercive socialism is authoritarian, whereas voluntary socialism is libertarian...same goes for capitalism. If you want to be exploited by a capitalist rather than cut out the middle man and run the work place yourself, along with your fellow workers, I'm not going to put a gun to your head and stop you because I'm not an authoritarian, even though I don't necessarily agree with your chosen form of economics/employment. Libertarians
wcropp1 7 months ago
@wcropp1 on the left and right need to unite against authoritarianism in all its forms. Where the issue becomes complex, however, is when you start discussing democratic-state socialism vs. lawless laissez-faire corporatism. The welfare state, IMO, has been a reaction by the workers against corporate personhood, business subsidizing, etc. In other words, "if business is going to be bailed out by the government, why shouldn't I?" Which is hard to argue with. The problem with right-libertarianism
wcropp1 7 months ago
@wcropp1 is, at least IMO, that some forms of it, i.e. the Libertarian Party, does not call into question the existence of corporations, which is a total game changer, along with other forms of pseudo-statist collusion between government and private industry. Perhaps eliminating the state would end the existence of corporations, but in the short term you cannot end welfare for poor people unless you also end it for big business. Politics has been reduced to a power struggle between the rich and
wcropp1 7 months ago
@wcropp1 the poor over government power, which is tyranny when done by the business community and a less than ideal solution to a serious problem for working people. IMO we need to reduce the role of the stole but not without also calling into question certain aspects of our economic institutions and only then can we seriously discuss cooperation between libertarians on the left and right. Corporatism vs. state-socialism isn't working.
wcropp1 7 months ago
@777Atheist Originally it was ONLY libertarian socialism, but the only real difference is how you view private property. I think it goes against human nature to do away with all private property-- it's like if you took down a saber tooth tiger, you get the benefit of using it as a resource, free to share it or not. I think it violates the no coercion principle if the rest of the tribe decides to kill you because you keep it for yourself and your family. Owning essentials is fine, but I think we
IceCreamRueckert 7 months ago
True Libertarianism is Socialism Mr. Ron Paul. the meaning of Libertarianism has been changed in this country. Read Ron Paul supporters about Libertarian Socialism, the TRUE Libertarianism.
777Atheist 7 months ago
Just can't stop nodding. lol
brianmo180 7 months ago
He says "have a libertarian society and take care of yourself", and then later says "you have the right to... your money".
The existence of money means that one relies on others, and hence can't take care of yourself.
Shananaganss 7 months ago
Hitler never hurt anyone before coming into power even during his campaign he didn't hurt a fly. So why does society hate him so much? I mean people were tolerant and who cares what he said as long as he didn't follow through right?
8av8today 8 months ago
What a simpleton.
warmongerpro 8 months ago
Also, Ron Paul doesn't understand socialism. Socialists see private property as it is - nothing more than a social rule, which allows a privileged use of territory and resources by the individuals. Since at some point for the sake of progressive and just society, any privilege must be abolished - so does the even limited rule of the private property as it is now. In the future, the very idea that the land, forests or iron ore can belong someone will be absurd.
timfidotru 9 months ago
@timfidotru Watch the video again. When he speaks of socialism he mentions collective ownership of the land. Collective ownership is indistinguishable from no one owning the land.
PissedFechtmeister 7 months ago
The best of both , Libertarian socialism!
AdamDLDixon 9 months ago
Look for
Noam Chomsky - Libertarian Socialism Contradicting terms
on YouTube.
Do not assume that socialism is always of the authoritarian type.
gary100dm 11 months ago
@gary100dm
Agreed. People forget about Left Libertarianism/Libertarian Socialism--which, hilariously enough, is where the term "Libertarian" came from...mostly from the anti-Stalin movement that recognized him for the monster that he was.
Eldeecue 11 months ago
LOL funny Ron Paul you steal the word libertarianism, to make it mean anarcho-capitalism. Libertarianism and anarchism are inherently socialist. You cannot have a free society with a small government unless it is socialist. So that's a stupid stamp for Ron Paul. Anarcho-capitalism will never work!! Anarcho-communism will!
4500jas 11 months ago
Right on Ron. I support a more free society. Greater liberty, equality, and democracy. I would like to see autonomous communities with the state and federal governments playing a very small role. Local communities would form partnerships to provide for education, health and social welfare between local governments, charities, nonprofits, churches, etc. Mutual banks and credit unions could be set up to provide low interest loans for employee owned cooperatives, partnerships, etc.
Spillers72 1 year ago
First, the labels of all political ideologies have been rendered useless. I technically call myself a Libertarian Socialist but you can just as easily say anarchist. Now, obviously Ron Paul doesn't go to the extent that I feel, mainly that states in general and most privatization are violent and an assault on our dignity. He has one important similarity though, we don't have to impose any system on everybody. Local communities make these decisions. The state has become our parents.
jstang112358 1 year ago
John D. Rockefeller was a socialist that made his money through capitalism, or is it the other way round?
alexandersydney 1 year ago
ron paul. the single conservative i respect.
Eayne 1 year ago
/watch?v=306M1uQ-4Xk
pvisserandorra 1 year ago
Individualism is the best system out there, it is the modern realization thats been compiled from thousands of years of research and evidence. Under individualism Rome prospered and became the envy of the world, but sneaky backstabbing politicians began the justification of each socialistic act after another. Higher taxes, then collective ownership, then boom! Oligarchy under the Caesers. Same thing is happening to us with Social Security, National Healthcare, etc. We are a socialism now.
davedavedaveannoy1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You couldn't set up a socialist society in a libertarian country because the buisiness elites would never allow it. The concerntration of capital in the economy gives disproportionate influence in the democratic process to a few. To parody paul:
YOU Just try and set up a socialist society in a libertarian country and take care of your self. THEY wont allow it because they need you and your monney to survive.
He can only the the state half the state-capitalist power structure. It all must go.
mutantguitarist123 1 year ago
Comment removed
mutantguitarist123 1 year ago
Except in a TRULY socialist society, you DO have the right to reject socialism.
An example of a truly socialist society would be the cooperative economies of the Spanish Revolution. Anarcho-syndicalism defined those societies, yet non-collectivist lived and worked in the same communities as collectivist. The two groups lived together in harmony.
QuatFax 1 year ago
It's obvious no one here has ever read anything about traditional anarchist thought, which happens to be both libertarian and socialist.
ErrolSaid 1 year ago
socialism means participatory control of the means of production. there is nothing inherently wrong with a single person working in exclusion but so long as there are externalities and abuses of reasorse that affect others, those who are implicated deserve a say in the matter that is proportionate to how those desitions affect them. so to sya that a socialist hegemony undermines the individual is fallacious. although i agree with the critique of state socialism.
fede2 1 year ago
I hope we can be tolerant enough to create a world with support for other world views.
Zander242 1 year ago
Thank you Mr Paul. This is a point we really need to drive home. The communist commenter here can't even address it . Why can't these #holes leave us alone? Go make your utopia over there with likeminded people and let the rest of us be free. We don't want your taxes and we don't want your help. Paul said it best here, they need us because their system does not work. It only works until the money and labor they can extract out of people is exhausted.
greenspanbubble 2 years ago
You obviously have a very poor grasp on the concept of communism.
skinu 2 years ago
skinu...lol. Ya sure. And what would the correct concept of communism be? lol
AStarSpangledGirl 2 years ago
@AStarSpangledGirl
In Communism, there is no class. That includes a ruling party.
skinu 1 year ago
@skinu With no "ruling party" how can you stop someone from starting a for-profit capitalist endeavor?
I'd really like to know. No anarcho-communist advocator has ever answered that question for me.
MrPloppy1 1 year ago
@MrPloppy1
You eliminate the system of capital. We have the technological capacity now to provide an unlimited standard of living to the entire world.
skinu 1 year ago
@skinu How would you allocate resources w/out capital? In otherwords, w/out prices, profits, loses and wages how can you accurately provide to the people what they want & need? How would you know whether the people want more production of laptops or the new iPad w/out profit and lose? Shouldn't the fisherman who risks his life on the open ocean get more then the guy who wraps fried fish sandwiches?
MrPloppy1 1 year ago
@MrPloppy
We don't need to stop people from profiting once a libertarian socialist society is established because most people do not want to be enslaved, if people will start their own capitalist society? let them be, as long as they do not threaten the existing libertarian society. But I cannot imagine anyone who wants to work in an undemocratic (=capitalist) company when they've worked in a democratic workplace, the only people who'd then want capitalism are those whom have private ownership.
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
@GodOfTheInternets Here's the problem with a "democratic workplace": noone would vote to lay themselves off at a company that is producing an unpopular product. material and labor would be misallocated. Imagine you work in a "democratic workplace" at a typewriter factory, would you vote to fire yourself and close shop, or keep on producing something noone wants anymore just to save your job?
MrPloppy1 1 year ago
@MrPloppy
That's not at all a valid argument because we can see how it works in societies today. In the Mondragon Coperation we see that the workers generally vote for cutting wages instead of downsizing and this coperation--controlled by workers--is a billion dollar company with over 50,000 employees, that's way bigger than the average company. And if a democratic workplace produces products that no-one wants then it will go bankrupt, just like a capitalist company, so what's the difference?
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
@MrPloppy1
Plus, I'd like to see a moneyless society, in other words a society where no company could go bankrupt because it is outcompeted and if a certain company doesn't produce anything useless they will simply be excluded from the participatory planning system which 'forces' them to find a new job or produce other goods.
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
@GodOfTheInternets You can't separate society and money. People will just find a new medium of exchange. Prisons are moneyless societies, so what do prisoners do? They make cigarettes their units of money.
A "participatory planning system" would be a central economic planning system that would ignore consumers' (society's) needs and wants, and replace profit and loss indicators (consumers voting with their wallets) with the guess work of some bureaucracy to allocate labor and resources.
MrPloppy1 1 year ago
@MrPloppy1
A participatory planning system would not be "central", because as the name implies anyone can directly--or indirectly--participate in the planning process and the wants and needs of society are directly satisfied, not like as in the state central planned economy. The nickname of this particular system is decentralized planning. The allocation of recources and such would not require a lot of bureaucracy since it is not a centrally planned economy.
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
@GodOfTheInternets A decentralized planning system already exists, it's called a free market. It's also very democratic. I "vote" for Coke over Pepsi with my wallet. If more of my neighbors "vote" for Coke, Coke allocates more resources to my area, and Pepsi allocates less.
If you change to a cost-free ballot, then I will always vote for Kobe beef prime rib & Maine lobster for dinner, & working an easy job 2 hours a week. There's no accounting for scarcity, or incentive to work hard or improve.
MrPloppy1 1 year ago
@MrPloppy1
I shook my head rigorously because of your obliviousness. You mix up two things. One, a participatory planning system as I describe is only neccessary if money were to be abolished. Two, I was talking about democratic workplaces not a democratic exchange system which you talk about.
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
@MrPloppy1 to follow your logic , when capital flows from one country to another, they are voting in its currency, in its bonds, and ultimatly it's government's policy.
They will attack countries that try to help the poor, countries that insist that the workers get a fair share of the wealth that they created, and move to states with big agressive militaries that police their intrests in which .
If this is a democracy, where's my say in all this?
mutantguitarist123 1 year ago
Ron Paul is the best you have!
TheGreatPenetrator 2 years ago 2
SpangleGirl,
Listening to this one is like having a V-8 moment. It's a no-brainer! I'd just today been mulling over this seeming quandary.of Socialism and Libertarianism ... and BAM! There this is. THANKS bunches for having this one up.
Urantianow 2 years ago
You are welcome :)
AStarSpangledGirl 2 years ago
2012
crustyshirt 2 years ago
Crusty....From your mouth to God's ears!!!
AStarSpangledGirl 2 years ago
In the last few years their ideas have been regaining popularity. At the end of 1999 Marx was voted the 'greatest thinker of the millennium' in a BBC online poll. Even some capitalist commentators and Wall Street traders have reread Marx and realized how clearly he described capitalism as it is today.
amsterdam78 2 years ago
It does not matter what large percentages of foolish people believe or do not believe. The reality is that labor side economic theory is laughable. Marx could not even explain the value of art in accord with the economic theory that he himself developed.
neue01 2 years ago
It's always gotta be about pushing people around, preferably with guns, huh?
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
In The Communist Manifesto, and later works such as Marx's Capital, they were the first to give a thorough and scientific analysis of the laws and workings of capitalist society: why it results in the polarization of wealth and, vitally, how it can be overthrown.
amsterdam78 2 years ago
Over 150 years ago Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto. It has become the most influential political pamphlet of all time. In 1999 a new edition entered the bestsellers list. Marx and Engels were the founders of scientific socialism.
amsterdam78 2 years ago
Capitalism's abject failure to provide the vast bulk of humanity with the material means for a dignified existence is not only due to the greed of individual billionaires or the failure of politicians.If it were, changing society would be a far simpler question of reforming the excesses of capitalism and dealing with the bad apples. But inequality and poverty are part of the fundamental nature of capitalist society.
amsterdam78 2 years ago
Haha, nice caveat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
droogie76 2 years ago
I believe in Freedom, and the benefits of voluntary human action of the individual as opposed to coersive or compulsory mandate of the collective.
rblevdawg 2 years ago 3
rblev...DITTO!!!
AStarSpangledGirl 2 years ago
Truth is on the march - I'm in the parade !
Come along and strut YOUR stuff with us !
Snowflake70 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
THE SOCIALIST PARTY strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control - a non-racist, classless, feminist socialist society... where working people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically-controlled public agencies; where full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work
amsterdam78 2 years ago
Leaving aside the utter naivete of this party platform, you appear to have completely missed Ron Paul's point. In a Libertarian society, you would be perfectly free to have a perfect socialist society in your community. However in your perfect socialist society, I and my friends would NOT be free to live in our own Libertarian community. We would allow you to be free and to live as you choose. Whereas you would NOT allow us the same liberty.
Panpiper 2 years ago 14
The working class is in a key and central position to fight back against the ruling capitalist class and its power. The working class is the major force worldwide that can lead the way to a socialist future - to a real radical democracy from below.
amsterdam78 2 years ago
fight back against the ruling "capitalist" class???? lol. Are you serious? There is NOTHING capitalistic about the elite lawmakers. FIRST step to getting things back in order is for you (and the rest of the anti-capitalist europeans) is to learn the DIFFERENCE between Capitalism and CORPORATISM.
There is NOTHING good about socialism. Socialism uses FORCE to sustain their ideology.
NO THANK!!! I prefer FREEDOM where one can INSPIRE others to give to the less fortunate BY CHOICE!!!!
AStarSpangledGirl 2 years ago
@AStarSpangledGirl
Nothing capitalist about elite-law makers? The law guarentees private property ownership, capitalist law right there. Socialism does not necessarily use force.
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
Panpiper...BINGO!!! he missed the boat COMPLETELY!
AStarSpangledGirl 2 years ago
@Panpiper you and he make the same assumption, that all socialism outlaws secession and that all socialism is central planned.
beenz07 1 year ago
@beenz07
@4500jas
@gary100dm
I am honestly trying to grasp my mind around this... (I am not just trying to spa