@jtizz711 can be done, and was done in Spain as Chomsky points out in this speech. Actually is the only alternative to this fake "democracy" and communism. Utopia, means it's nowhere to be found... today... but the concept of utopia disappeared for anarchism after the spanish revolution in 1936.
you gentiles are Pathetic Always take some jew and make him god or Messiah just like the jesus and kerl marx and know this noam chomsky did you ever wondering why is this all your biggst gods and messiah and your intellectuals from right and left are jewish and you wonder how we the jews call are self the chosen people dont diss this
comment in 100 yreas from know your kids will things that holly histroy just like your Fathers Though't even the arebs belive in a jewish idea of god
Libertarian Socialist is not an Oxymoron, you can believe in a lot of Individual Freedom especially on Social Issues. While believing in the Welfare State and collectivism as well. Noam Chomsky is a perfect example of this.
Anarchism is just an ideological tendency. Absolute anarchism entails no government, but that is probably not desirable. For example many anarchists might favor a national post service as it is a necessary utility for the communication of ideas. even Sweden is not absolutely socialist... in fact no country is absolutely anything.
@FootDanielLight The common definition of state in political science is a "monopoly on the use of force". I'm not convinced that you need such a thing to run a postal service.
@MichaelStepkoff Fan of Chomsky I guess! The one good thing about some of you fans of Chomsky is your worship of the false prophet is so absolute that he humbles you; you express your worship of his supposed 'intelligence' with statements of how ignorant you are (compared to him). You cut out that last part in parentheses and you will finally be on the path to curing your problem.
I can fucking guarantee you this for sure. STOP BEING A MEMBER OF A CULT.
I hate Ron Paul Libertarians, they wish to create a society in which we are a decentralised Fascist state. Real Communism, Real Democracy, and real liberty comes from Anarchism. Don't barrage me with your ignorance of Anarchism, that it is a chaotic and lawless state. Anarchism is a perfect and free form of Marxism. Research Catalunia 1936 to Learn about their anarchist experiment
@4500jas You don't know what a Ron Paul libertarian is if you think that. Ron Paul is about free market capatalism and limited government. I think you are talking about the rest of the republican party. He is about as close to an Anarchist as your going to get.
@4500jas Anarchism requires that their is no state remember ? Anarchism and Marxism are two VERRY different ideologies.
In anarchism you would have "perfect" freedom, and thus there could be certain people who had *chosen* to live in marxism, but it would by no means be a *requirement*.
Also, if democracy existed in one part of the country or between certain people then there wouldn't be Anarchism in that area and then those people would no longer be living in an Anarchy but in a Democracy.
@ToxinalX but since anarchy promotes these circles of free association including your aforementioned ideological circles that theoretically could arise, wouldn't every small social circle within anarchy actually take on characteristics of other developed notions of social structure? In other words, how, in anarchy, would one continue to live within a anarchic social circle that doesn't have characteristics of other developed structures?
@enigmism4life Though I'm not sure I got yours; My point was simply that anarchy won't last forever. Societys of different forms will most probably arise once again. Thus it will no longer be anarchy.
Noam hates individual liberty and can't stand independent thought.... I get it already!!!! The guy isn't even remotely interesting.... Listening to him is like watching silent re-runs of "All in the family" .... Just shoot me Puh Leeeeeeze!!!
@bmalgs .yes chomsky hates independent thought.He is just a tool of the left wing nutters,as you say.Capitalism for the win,motherfuckers!!!!!! i Dont give a shit about other people or resources. I live in a wonderful house with everythingyoucould want in a modern context,so boohoo to all the cunts who dont.
The Zeitgeist Movement is such a joke. It extols virtues which are ostensibly socialist, but claims all the "isms" are created by bankers and the elite, or some similar nonsense. It proposes a destination, but no journey. I can't believe how many people have been duped into this nonsense. The Zeitgeist Movement will go nowhere aside from conspiracy theories and violent reactionaries, as evident by Jared Loughner being influenced by the Zeitgeist movies, and his subsequent homicidal rampage.
People who conspire, solicit or aid and abet coercion should be arrested for doing such. That includes conspiring, soliciting or aiding and abetting criminal socialists.
@ssmusic214 What a brainwashed idiot you are. Your equivocation of socialism as a whole with state socialism is laughable to anybody who actually has the intellectual rigor to go beyond our high school and media brainwashing and actually read a book. Have you ever read Proudhon? Bakunin? Kropotkin?Did they ever teach you about the 1936 anarchist revolution in your high school? All of the original anarchists were socialists who called for the abolition of both government and capitalism.
@GuyMontag92 Brainless idiot! You have no clue what kind of senseless gibber you are blabbing. I am not interested in theoretical fantasies and fairy tale dreams that never existed and never will exist in real life. And you don't have a clue what socialism is.
Socialism means government redistribution of wealth. Socialism without government is oxymoron.
@ssmusic214 What about the anarchist society that existed in Spain during the civil war in 1936? What about the various communes throughout the world in which there is no hierarchy? What about the international MCC, a cooperative corporation that operates democratically? Stop drinking the kool-aid.
@GuyMontag92 What? Any family business in US, and company where employees bought up the stock, and any freelancer (like myself) who own their own "means of production" are "libertarian socialists"? We call it free enterprise system here.
@ssmusic214 Cooperative ownership and control of means of production is no fantacy, it is real and is implemented in some places and works well. Although it operates in a capitalist enviroment it is an example of libertarian socialism in practice.
Just reading the wikipedia page about socialism would be a good start to understand what socialism is beyond what you have learnt from fox news. It would prevent you from making dumbed down statements of the broad spectrum of what socialism is.
@surlagachette2 Stupid Child! I lived 30 years under socialism. And studied Marxist theory for 17years. You're making total idiot of yourself blabbing about what is "fantacy" and what isn't.
@ssmusic214 Yes because you have secret spcial knowledge that makes you superior no arguments are needed. Pathetic. What socialst country are you talking about? I know of none so far in history as most have been authoritarian style communist state which have been stuck in the dictatorial stage.
@ssmusic214 Yes,. You are making a logical fallacy of argument. YOu are saying that because you have X knowledge/authority on the subject you are right. This is what i mean with secret knowledge.
I repeat my question as you were not able to answer. What socialist countries? I know of no succesful attempt at creating a socialist society. We can argue why, but i would say that this is more or less a fact. All have been failed communist attemts that have gotten stuck in the pre communist, pre soc
@ssmusic214 pre socialist stage of the "proletarian dictatorship" which is not a good place to be. In any sence. But not worse then libertarina states like liberia for example. In fact if i had to chose between living in the soviet union at it's worst times and liberia i would pick the soviet union and i thikn any sane person would do the same.
This does not do much to credit or discretid any of the ideologies. as many external factors can be claimed. But it gives perspective.
He made his reputation in linguistics and then, extremely impressed with his own achievements in this field, felt free to venture into other areas which he pompously inundates with streams of uninformed opinions.
@jscottupton Let's see, you have Queen's 'We Are the Champions' video, another presumptuous video by creepy free-marketeer sallow-complexioned white-guy HowtheWorldWorks, and video on the Federal Reserve favorited to your channel. Let me guess: Your life ambition is to strike it big in the stock market or business because capitalism is God's plan for America. Do I have you pegged?
Otherwise, which of Chomsky's opinions do you feel are are uninformed? Score one for free intellectual inquiry.
The evolution of recent human history has been dominated by minority control over the majority, the rulers have come up with nessesary illusion for compliance and servitude of the many, Science and technology has created a world of plenty, but the market mechanism is about artificial scarcity to perpetuate poverty and exploitation in a modality of war,enviornmental destructions,animal cruelty and so on . The new paradigm is sharing the Earth for our collective needs and wellbeing
what your saying sounds nice but leads to inherent problems as well. Such talk is like saying we should never have a recession and expect it or humans should and must never make mistakes. Sounds nice but doesn't work out well in reality. The problem, the root of all problems is people. One of the biggest problems is fear and or entitement. People. Look back at many problems in human history and you will see these two factors at work. Need to work on them and work together.
@dontblockmedk I think anarchocapitalism would do. Through a free market system where people pay in exchange for value, entrepreneurs would be motivated to, not only move the existing resources to where the demand is, but also to find NEW ways to combine the existing resources to satisfy demand. Otherwise, what would motivate people to share their resources, knowledge, develop technology. Force? Also, corporations are government creations to attract investment by granting limited liability.
@a Central control is NOT necessary when you have DECENTRALIZED automated self sufficient cities. The questions.
1 Can we produce abundant food, water, energy, etc for everyone or not?
2 Do we have the technology to automate most of the work or not?
If no, prove it.
If yes, 'money for labor' is OBSOLETE. So the only logical system is to produce abundance and just distribute it. There can only be force when there is NOT enough for everyone, ONLY with abundance EVERYONE is FREE. GET IT.
@dontblockmedk "makes crime obsolete" Are you sure? How can you assert that in a system that is not monetarily driven that people will always be content?
@ToxinalX Well who makes sure you get anything when you're at the mercy of capitalists? In a capitalist system you have to give away most of what you make to the exploiting capitalist class.
@kingofqwerty I never said anyone did, because capitalism doesn't revolve around "making sure" others get what they want. Communism in its pure form however does. So who would ultimately decide who gets what ? Who would make that law if all are equal ?
Capitalism revolves around the fact that neither full socialism nor modern nanny states work. But capitalism can both spread the allready existing wealth around, as well as it provides a good ground for ideologies that advocate small goverments.
@ToxinalX "Modern nanny states" do work - My country, Sweden is often referred to as one of the most successful states there is and has bounced back from the economic crisis perhaps the best of all European countries. It is argued by economic scientists that welfare is a free lunch because you get every penny back that you invest in it. Communism is probably undesirable,I think companies should aim to have flat hierarchies and there shouldn't be too large gaps in income btw. workers and bosses.
@kingofqwerty Jag antar att jag kunde skrivit alltsammans på svenska i stället då. :P
Sweden did better than most european countries simply because we elected a new goverment consisting of the most pro-capitalist political parties in our country instead of just spending more money and continuing to bail out every single failed company or bank "for the sake of the common good".
Also, a "nanny state" is not exactly the same as a lesser capitalist country, but Sweden is still a great example.
@ToxinalX Well... I think the reason is as far as I know, because not many banks and companies needed to be bailed out in Sweden thanks to the "protectionist" financial system there inherited from the years of the social democracy... but I might be wrong...
@vitaminasHM According to keynesian economics (And a lot of Swedish economists) this would be verry accurate.
But If you study the works of Milton Friedman, FA Hayek and "austrian economics", you will soon come to realise that the only thing the Social Democrats brought was a gigantic bubble in housing. Sound familiar ?
A set of rules that the former PM was not slow to take advantage of, buying a house at a slightly lowered cost of 12,5 milj, while getting EU subsidies.
@dontblockmedk spot on comment! Have you read Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality? He speaks of the first man fencing off private property as leading to all social inequality among society. A good read.
@enigmism4life Some say money is the root of all evil but I think Rouseau is right 'property' is.
Even John Locke, who introduced the concept of 'private property' that was used as the foundation of capitalism, would not recognize what it has become. Check out this vid.
@Crabbensmasher You are exactly right. The only people who are against ZM RBE are the rich who are raping everyone, and the idiots who have been brainwashed into thinking they might someday be one of the rich.
It is really pathetic though because the rich elites will NEVER let any of these 'capitalism defenders' 'american dream believers' become rich. It is almost funny if it wasn't so sad. The good news is that money property system is failing and we have a chance to have a better world.
@dontblockmedk Well said. The original concept of american capitalism and the "american dream" type thing actually didn't seem so bad based on what I've learned. Things like what the early US presidents were known to believe in. Eventually though, large corporations, rich elites, and of course the central bank (learned from zietgeist) skewed the entire thing. All fueled by an out of control greed that really degrades people. It's time for us to flip over a new leaf and do away with money.
That's right! Wow! That makes so much sense! Wow! I just love things when they are gay! I just love it when men take it in the shitter! Fuck capitalism! Fuck free enterprise! Just bend over and take it in the shitter! If we can get control of America we can rule the entire world! Fuck capitalism! Socialism is the way! If everybody takes it in the shitter then everybody will be equal! Do you understand? Do you? Take it in the shitter for socialism!
Capitalism, Corporate or State dominated or In It together is the wage slavery of immense humanity for abstract process of Capital accumulation and concentration for the elite, 250 top corporations control over 1/3 of the world GDP. More than 3 billion workers are on 2 dollars a day. Capitalism is template of perpetual war,oppression,enviornmental destructions,animal cruelty and suffering, A dehumanising distorting minority imposition in thier inatiable drive for ever more Profit no matter what
The evolution of recent human history has been dominated by minority control over the majority, the rulers have come up with nessesary illusion for compliance and servitude of the many, Science and technology has created a world of plenty, but the market mechanism is about artificial scarcity to perpetuate poverty and exploitation in a modality of war,enviornmental destructions,animal cruelty and so on . The new paradigm is sharing the Earth for our collective needs and wellbeing.
There are several laws, orders, and rules that just "happen." They even evolve from the most finite levels of the universe where phenomena are fundamentally random and unpredictable. Hawking said the universe is a big casino and he is correct. but it is a very ordered universe beyond the finite level.
Point being any idea that government and collective interference being required for order is unsupported in nature.
I have NO DOUBT that you people that call yourselves libertarian socialists believe in and cherish individual liberties.
but you could not be socialist as pure socialism rejects the individual in favor of the collective. Liberty and life are synonymous. A collective isn't alive therefore it cannot ever be free. The idea of collective liberty is something that just cannot exist.
IOW A true socialist must oppose individual liberty, especially property rights.
Libertarian on social issues, drink, fuck, shoot, whatever and whoever you want and socialist in economy....me I'm a light socialist heavy libertarian on individual rights. The people are dead UP WITH ME!
"Libertarian" originally referred to a strain of anarchist socialism -- people have no business making claims on each other beyond an expectation of ethical behavior, but that ethical behavior is still important to observe. In particular, libertarian socialists (as opposed to state-capitalist or neo-feudalist "Libertarians") recognize property as a social practice which must be maintained, to the extent that it is maintained at all, through continual consent.
@TheSophist2007 Because socialism has nothing to do with government lol. Socialism is a socio-economic theory. Has nothing to directly do with politics
@Tougemaster06 exactly, true socialism/communism abolishes government, thats one of the things i like about it. what we see in america is corporatism, america in no longer a country but a corporation.
@Tougemaster06 yeah, sure. Just a shame it is a fantasy and not rooted in reality. How can you abolish private property w/o a coercive state? Libertarian my ***
Actually, read about the history of Spanish anarchism. It was done with a great degree of success until destroyed by the fascists. There were self managed groups of citizens, no private property, no centralized authority.
@Simbelmyne13 Interesting.. Maybe I will read up on that. But my point is, sure you can have lots of communities or places where people live like that. But you can't make it into a system, because you would need a coercive state.
Another thing is, human interaction of resources is so complex on a large scale that there's no way anyone can know how it works. That's why you need a price mechanism.
I encourage you to read about it, certainly. I don't think you need a coercive state. At least in the case I was talking about, there was no such thing. The anarchist ideas had been circulating for almost a century before then and there was a lively intellectual community among the proletariat. When they instituted it, it was a popular movement (i.e. not imposed from above). I'm not sure what you mean in your last point. Currency? Perhaps, but I'm not so sure.
I suggest you read into some economics (basically the study of how resources are distributed between people, especially free-market/laissez-faire economics (based on the non-aggression principle).
If you're interested in anarchism, you should also look into libertarian anarchism.. I suggest you look up Stefbot on youtube. Trust me, he's the real thing.
I'm not saying I have any extensive knowledge of economics but as ecology grad student, I am extremely interested in ecological economics. It ties economics to knowledge of biological/ecological systems and principles such as carrying capacity. From what I can tell so far, it is far superior to standard economics, which seems to make far too many assumptions and is very subject to ideology. Thanks for the suggestion.
@Simbelmyne13 You can't say it's superior to economics in the macroeconomic sense, that's an absurd statement for various reasons. I don't know anything about ecologial economic systems, but maybe it would work for some people some places.
Laissez-fairez economics holds that no one should have a monopoly on currency (fiat-money) and would therefore invite various models that would work for different people. The thing about laissez-faire economics is, what works will survive and develop.
It's not absurd. It's a different approach to economic ideas. Incorporating the biological world and ecological principles. Generally, how energy flows through the system and resources are created, destroyed, or maintained. As I understand so far this is all lacking from standard economics and it shows.
I wasn't even talking about free market ideas. Anyways, unless you put some sort of protections in place,it wouldn't work. Powerful institutions will too often use power to leverage more of it.
@Simbelmyne13 Yes OF COURSE you need protective institutions. In other words protective 'force' or potential 'violence' in order to protect something (which is legitimate). But why should you have a monopoly on violence/force/threat of force?? In other words, you can private profit OR non-profit protective institutions. You don't need a state for that.
I sincerely hope you're not saying your system should be forced on people, b/c then this conversation is over.
What? I think you misread a lot of what I say. Any change in society must be democratic. Formerly, I gave the example of a movement that was fully so w/ workers organizing themselves and managing their own society. If we seek change we must convince people through reasoned arguments backed with empirical evidence.
Private protective institutions would likely ensure mostly those with wealth would be protected. Not unlike how many corporations use money to leverage gov protections and subsidies.
@Simbelmyne13 You can't change the state. The nature of any state or government is to grow larger (even the ones *designed* to be small and limited, although have simply evolved from monarchy) and when the happens corporations and private interests will naturally try to influence the beast in their favor.
Logically and empirically statism is complete disaster.
Change and development happens spontaneously, it's not something you decide upon democratically.
By that logic, the civil rights movement "just happened" instead of being the effort of many individuals freely working together and convincing others (i.e. democracy). Change towards state capitalism "just happened". It also makes no sense to appeal to others to adopt your own anarcho-capitalist view.
I gave you an example of a society that worked together to implement the vision they agreed on. It wasn't some unexplainable force of nature. Sry I can't debate any more. Got research to do.
@Simbelmyne13 Well of course you can't convince people because they don't see the evil that the state is. Statism in the future will be seen like slavery was: evil. But as the national keeps getting higer, as the wars start to become more numerous, as more terrorist hysteria is wipped up, the more people they imprison, the higer taxes get, the more worthless money get, the more they print money, the more they bailout private companies, the more people will be forced to see the evils of statism.
@Sivels I mean true in the context of the conversation, of classic libertarianism which embraces more democratic ideals; which are more or less is synonymous with what are known as left wing ideals. Vulgar libertarianism observes more conservative ideals, which have a very socially authoritative nature and are very conflicting with the ideals of liberty.
@Tougemaster06 Conservativism is really yesterdays progressivism and has little to do with real capitalism. Capitalism is not the evil. The slavemaster-slave relationship is.
Real libertarianism is all about maximum freedom from coercion. (in my view anacho-capitalism and objectivism are the solid defenders of liberty).
@Sivels I would disagree fully. Anarch-Capitalism would give birth to an extremely tyrannical future on the basis that you commodify all aspects of human existence for the sake of the capitalist system; while eliminating the existence of a state that allows the public to have a discourse against the destructive actions of Capitalist. It would literally be like letting Microsoft and Goldman Sachs run the country with no constitution or government.
@Tougemaster06 Once again how can you be libertarian when liberty is essentially human and individual and socialism rejects the individual in favor of the collective? To reject the individual IS to reject liberty.
Furthermore if socialism, as one person erroneously claimed, is public control of the means of production...how can you reconciliate that with individual property rights? To control production we have to control property. You therefore must reject individual property rights.
@Tougemaster06 what a load of rubbish. all right wing anarchism advocates is that people be left alone to do whatever they want without the coercive force of the state. that is the only true anarchism.
refer to libertarian socialists using the true definition - communism - the stage after socialism when the government is supposed to wither away.
@AussiePolitics Right Wing Libertarianism says let people a lone to do whatever they want, even if it involves exploiting other people. They are still Capitalist, and they are still after the vile maxims of power. They don't want the state to tell them what to do. They have no problem with the state protecting their property and enforcing those property rights on other people. They don't hate the state. They hate the democratic state that works for all people, even those with no property.
@Tougemaster06 there is no such thing as conservative libertarianism. conservatives like big government because they want to force their morals on people socially.
@AussiePolitics American Libertarianism is basically synonymous with Anarcho-Capitalism. Tougemaster clearly has an understanding of the difference between the american and international concept of libertarianism, but you don't appear to.
@Pogs4Fathersday ever read reason magazine mate? they represent the mainstream on libertarian thought in the US. and NO they are NOT anarchists. they advocate a limited form of government. so quite frankly its you who doesn't appear to understand true libertarianism.
@Pogs4Fathersday There are many forms of libertarianism and they all overlap in areas but are vastly different. Anarcho-capitalism is NOT American libertarianism. Libertarian SOCIALIST is the international view. Anarcho-capitalism is basically libertarian socialism with individualism and private property. Minarchism, is a step passed anarcho, where we have basic functions of government, but instead of an ever expanding government, it is just small or large enough to do the job when needed
@AussiePolitics Actually there is, because there are more than one form of conservative... fiscal and social issues dealing with values/morals... So I am a FISCALLY conservative libertarian (minarchist/minimalist like Ron Paul or Judge Napolitano), but besides pro-life, I am LIBERAL on freedom issues like the drug war.. There are also different forms of liberalism as well of course. Keep researching! No one knows it all, and I've very recently researched this topic so there's my 2Cents
@Clyaton mate look up where the concept of libertarianism originated. it came from classical liberalism which advocated smaller government, the individual's rights and freedoms as the supreme value. government was to have merely a very small role mainly to do with defence. you can call yourself what you like, however just because you make a claim does not make you a libertarian anymore than the chinese calling themselves communist make them so.
@AussiePolitics I HAVE.. I realize what OUR definition.. I don't know what's with the light attack... I was merely being specific.. I read Reason as well as check the Cato Institute regularly. I am the libertarian you are talking about... I just accept that there are other definitions out there. Just like socialism, where socialism means public owning the means of production, where as there are other definitions like forms of government redistribution. Get what I'm saying?
@Clyaton well actually they both have a definition. socialism is the government controlling the means of production, while the groups advocating redistribution of wealth etc are generally called social democrats/modern liberals.
@AussiePolitics CLASSICAL liberalism, is actually pretty damned new, we are 'right' libertarians, they are 'left' libertarians.. Outside the U.S. though Libertarian socialism is redundant, so if you call yourself a libertarian abroad, just be aware that it takes on a whole new, socialist, meaning.
@Clyaton what on earth are talking about? classical liberalism is pretty damned new? actually its very old. the 'father' of classical liberalism is widely regarded as john locke who was born in 1632, and his theories were expanded on in the 1800s by people like mills and adam smith who wrote 'the wealth of nations.'
classical liberalism came first, then came modern liberalism which is what you call 'libertarian socialism', then a new wave of classical libs occurred called the neoliberals.
@Clyaton and no, if you call yourself a libertarian abroad then you are not viewed automatically as a socialist. i live in australia where libertarianism is regarded as being about smaller government intervention and more freedom. our main right wing political party is called the liberal party because that is how liberalism is still defined in many places outside of the US.
@AussiePolitics That simply means that the American libertarianism is spreading................................ Besides, a lot of the ideas are based on Austrian economics, ideas from people that were from other countries.. A lot of American politics is your politics and vice-versa, I'm merely saying there are different views, of the same damned words, you can't just automatically say someone is wrong when they tell you what they know about the libertarianism they have been taught at home.
@Clyaton american libertarianism is spreading? as I said before, someone can call themselves a libertarian, communist or fascist but if their ideological views do not match the accepted definition of the world that does not make them so.
you can call yourself a libertarian or a classical liberal but if you do not believe in smaller government, less intervention, spending, individual autonomy, sorry you are not one.
@AussiePolitics That's not accurate. A libertarian socialist can support greater government interventions when it means mitigating corporate domination, just as a classical liberal will do the same. For example, Adam Smith called on the government to intervene in favor of workers, in stark contrast to the mythology that has proliferated about his ideas.
@Tougemaster06 I don't know why so many people are agreeing with you.. Your statement is blatantly false.. There is more than one meaning to Libertarian... Luckily, because it's unrealistic, and would simply be a different type of rule of the majority (tyranny). If we ever got there, it wouldn't last long, and it would suck to boot is what I'm saying.. Now, minimalist, or minarchist libertarianism, is what we see today in America. Based on Locke, Jefferson, const. private property, etc.
@Tougemaster06 Now, much of anarcho-capitalism thought has overlapped into society... But no American Libertarian wants to eliminate government entirely.. So they are minarchist, not anarcho-capitalist.
@Clyaton Umm...well...anarchists also don't want a lack of order.They want to "police themselves" and are too much of pussies to call it government because at the end of the day that's all it is. However, instead of a corrupt bunch of wall street greedy goons that think they know what's best for everyone it's a bunch of smelly "anarchists" who think they know what's best for everyone. Same tune different instrument.
@migsluck1 I would say a lack of order and policing themselves is simply changing a couple words.. But I agree with your overall statement. In an anarcho system, I'm sure many things would work fine, but who really cares? It won't happen anyway, and the subject just brings up 10x more questions than it answers. Supposedly, society would work out all those problems just fine. Not all services are that profitable. Courts, security, best done by someone accountable to us all.
@Tougemaster06 Interesting how you folks can actually combine two words that oppose each other and actually think it's legit. Libertarianism promotes individual rights and personal freedoms while Socialism is a concentration on the communal whole. You can't have the latter without sacrificing the former. Interesting how he, Noam Chomsky, dares to call himself a "libertarian socialist/anarchist" when he himself has made so much money from his books etc. Blatantly capitalistic pig.
@migsluck1 And you're yet another person who confuses Libertarian-Socialism with the Libertarian Party. They are two completely different things. The Libertarian Party was started in 1970. Libertarian-Socialism pre-dates the LP by more than 100 years. Also, the last bit of your comment is hilarious. Libertarian-Socialism doesn't prohibit people from making a profit and is actually against STATE Socialism. Why can't you be bothered with reading up on an ideology before criticizing it?
@moonshiny74 Oh c'mon. I consider myself to be a Libertarian and I sure as hell am not part of the LP. I know the differences between Big C and little c if that's what you're talking about. Funny you say Libertarian-Socialism doesn't prohibit people from making a profit because the majority of "libertarian-socialists" on forums I've posted, AnarchistBlackCat for one, have all said otherwise. I've been involved with anarchists for the past 15 years of my life and it's utter hypocrisy.
@enomarekim there already is something called democratic socialism. its state socialism that allows from small businesses and maintains a party electoral system. so you could vote them out.
The libertarian socialists (and anarchists) can make a claim of seniority WRT the term "libertarian" -- we were using it first. If the capitalist-authoritarians who have appropriated the term want to avoid confusion, they can call themselves "fundamentalist capitalists" or "capitalist neo-feudalists".
Except that's not what it is. Social anarchism? Why? Libertarianism is NOT about social anarchy, just limited government. Social anarchy would be the complete lack of government or laws. This is not libertarianism.
Silly socialists, rationality is for Libertarians.
SanguineBullet667 1 week ago
where's the rest of it? a great little snippet; would love to see the whole thing.
CF565 5 months ago
What libertarian socialism is is just another attempt at a utopian ideal society. Can't be done.
jtizz711 5 months ago
@jtizz711 can be done, and was done in Spain as Chomsky points out in this speech. Actually is the only alternative to this fake "democracy" and communism. Utopia, means it's nowhere to be found... today... but the concept of utopia disappeared for anarchism after the spanish revolution in 1936.
vitaminasHM 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you gentiles are Pathetic Always take some jew and make him god or Messiah just like the jesus and kerl marx and know this noam chomsky did you ever wondering why is this all your biggst gods and messiah and your intellectuals from right and left are jewish and you wonder how we the jews call are self the chosen people dont diss this
comment in 100 yreas from know your kids will things that holly histroy just like your Fathers Though't even the arebs belive in a jewish idea of god
ehudnold9 5 months ago 3
Libertarian Socialist is not an Oxymoron, you can believe in a lot of Individual Freedom especially on Social Issues. While believing in the Welfare State and collectivism as well. Noam Chomsky is a perfect example of this.
FRSFreeStateES 6 months ago
Audio quality is pretty terrible on this.
cott2696 7 months ago 4
@cott2696 just makes me pay more attention!
s0673451 3 weeks ago
@s0673451 Can't even remember what that's in response to.
cott2696 3 weeks ago
Anarchism is just an ideological tendency. Absolute anarchism entails no government, but that is probably not desirable. For example many anarchists might favor a national post service as it is a necessary utility for the communication of ideas. even Sweden is not absolutely socialist... in fact no country is absolutely anything.
FootDanielLight 7 months ago
@FootDanielLight The common definition of state in political science is a "monopoly on the use of force". I'm not convinced that you need such a thing to run a postal service.
SkyGuySunny 7 months ago
@FootDanielLight You are using a dictionary definition of "anarchy." Anarchism is in fact a political theory. Get your facts straight.
agapeiron 7 months ago
sorry folks on the left. you are getting a wee bit 1984ish
mizzoulibertarian 8 months ago
snap, crackle and pop!
doston1 8 months ago
0:02 RIP the guy with headphone...
TheBlindPowerslave 10 months ago
I am stupid and ignorant.
MichaelStepkoff 10 months ago 3
@MichaelStepkoff Fan of Chomsky I guess! The one good thing about some of you fans of Chomsky is your worship of the false prophet is so absolute that he humbles you; you express your worship of his supposed 'intelligence' with statements of how ignorant you are (compared to him). You cut out that last part in parentheses and you will finally be on the path to curing your problem.
I can fucking guarantee you this for sure. STOP BEING A MEMBER OF A CULT.
Or at least go to war with LaRouche.
countertreason 10 months ago
@MichaelStepkoff you need some yumyums
radscorpion8 9 months ago
I hate Ron Paul Libertarians, they wish to create a society in which we are a decentralised Fascist state. Real Communism, Real Democracy, and real liberty comes from Anarchism. Don't barrage me with your ignorance of Anarchism, that it is a chaotic and lawless state. Anarchism is a perfect and free form of Marxism. Research Catalunia 1936 to Learn about their anarchist experiment
4500jas 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@4500jas You might want to look up the definition of fascist.
666or999 10 months ago
@4500jas You don't know what a Ron Paul libertarian is if you think that. Ron Paul is about free market capatalism and limited government. I think you are talking about the rest of the republican party. He is about as close to an Anarchist as your going to get.
EpochalypseHow 9 months ago
@4500jas Anarchism requires that their is no state remember ? Anarchism and Marxism are two VERRY different ideologies.
In anarchism you would have "perfect" freedom, and thus there could be certain people who had *chosen* to live in marxism, but it would by no means be a *requirement*.
Also, if democracy existed in one part of the country or between certain people then there wouldn't be Anarchism in that area and then those people would no longer be living in an Anarchy but in a Democracy.
ToxinalX 8 months ago
@ToxinalX but since anarchy promotes these circles of free association including your aforementioned ideological circles that theoretically could arise, wouldn't every small social circle within anarchy actually take on characteristics of other developed notions of social structure? In other words, how, in anarchy, would one continue to live within a anarchic social circle that doesn't have characteristics of other developed structures?
enigmism4life 7 months ago
@enigmism4life Though I'm not sure I got yours; My point was simply that anarchy won't last forever. Societys of different forms will most probably arise once again. Thus it will no longer be anarchy.
Hope you get my point :)
ToxinalX 7 months ago
@Chinopisces. Name calling? :) Base.
bmalgs 10 months ago
Noam hates individual liberty and can't stand independent thought.... I get it already!!!! The guy isn't even remotely interesting.... Listening to him is like watching silent re-runs of "All in the family" .... Just shoot me Puh Leeeeeeze!!!
bmalgs 10 months ago
@bmalgs: You, sir, are an idiot.
chinopisces 10 months ago
@bmalgs .yes chomsky hates independent thought.He is just a tool of the left wing nutters,as you say.Capitalism for the win,motherfuckers!!!!!! i Dont give a shit about other people or resources. I live in a wonderful house with everythingyoucould want in a modern context,so boohoo to all the cunts who dont.
laudrup90 7 months ago
@laudrup90 what is your damage? that is on of the most narcissistic thoughts that i've heard in awhile. you are the economic crash.
mrtabitha31 6 months ago
The Zeitgeist Movement is such a joke. It extols virtues which are ostensibly socialist, but claims all the "isms" are created by bankers and the elite, or some similar nonsense. It proposes a destination, but no journey. I can't believe how many people have been duped into this nonsense. The Zeitgeist Movement will go nowhere aside from conspiracy theories and violent reactionaries, as evident by Jared Loughner being influenced by the Zeitgeist movies, and his subsequent homicidal rampage.
rtnslnd 11 months ago
his wife was here, but she died...sad....love u noam
bfoaliali 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
People who conspire, solicit or aid and abet coercion should be arrested for doing such. That includes conspiring, soliciting or aiding and abetting criminal socialists.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
Most ridiculous nonsense I ever heard!
Libertarian Socialist is oxymoron! Contradiction of terms.
ssmusic214 1 year ago
@ssmusic214 What a brainwashed idiot you are. Your equivocation of socialism as a whole with state socialism is laughable to anybody who actually has the intellectual rigor to go beyond our high school and media brainwashing and actually read a book. Have you ever read Proudhon? Bakunin? Kropotkin?Did they ever teach you about the 1936 anarchist revolution in your high school? All of the original anarchists were socialists who called for the abolition of both government and capitalism.
GuyMontag92 1 year ago
@GuyMontag92 Brainless idiot! You have no clue what kind of senseless gibber you are blabbing. I am not interested in theoretical fantasies and fairy tale dreams that never existed and never will exist in real life. And you don't have a clue what socialism is.
Socialism means government redistribution of wealth. Socialism without government is oxymoron.
ssmusic214 1 year ago
@ssmusic214 What about the anarchist society that existed in Spain during the civil war in 1936? What about the various communes throughout the world in which there is no hierarchy? What about the international MCC, a cooperative corporation that operates democratically? Stop drinking the kool-aid.
GuyMontag92 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GuyMontag92 And what any of that has to do with "Libertarian Socialism"?
ssmusic214 1 year ago
@GuyMontag92 And what any of this has to do with "Libertarian Socialism"?
You really need to sober up!
ssmusic214 1 year ago
@ssmusic214 They are examples of libertarian socialism you fool.
GuyMontag92 1 year ago
@GuyMontag92 What? Any family business in US, and company where employees bought up the stock, and any freelancer (like myself) who own their own "means of production" are "libertarian socialists"? We call it free enterprise system here.
ssmusic214 1 year ago
@ssmusic214 Cooperative ownership and control of means of production is no fantacy, it is real and is implemented in some places and works well. Although it operates in a capitalist enviroment it is an example of libertarian socialism in practice.
Just reading the wikipedia page about socialism would be a good start to understand what socialism is beyond what you have learnt from fox news. It would prevent you from making dumbed down statements of the broad spectrum of what socialism is.
surlagachette2 1 year ago
@surlagachette2 Stupid Child! I lived 30 years under socialism. And studied Marxist theory for 17years. You're making total idiot of yourself blabbing about what is "fantacy" and what isn't.
ssmusic214 1 year ago
@ssmusic214 Yes because you have secret spcial knowledge that makes you superior no arguments are needed. Pathetic. What socialst country are you talking about? I know of none so far in history as most have been authoritarian style communist state which have been stuck in the dictatorial stage.
surlagachette2 1 year ago
@surlagachette2 Stupid child! What "secret knowledge" are you blabbing about? "Secret" held by few billion people?
And if you "know of none so far in history" you shouldn't be open your mouth about socialism.
ssmusic214 1 year ago
@ssmusic214 Yes,. You are making a logical fallacy of argument. YOu are saying that because you have X knowledge/authority on the subject you are right. This is what i mean with secret knowledge.
I repeat my question as you were not able to answer. What socialist countries? I know of no succesful attempt at creating a socialist society. We can argue why, but i would say that this is more or less a fact. All have been failed communist attemts that have gotten stuck in the pre communist, pre soc
surlagachette2 1 year ago
@surlagachette2 Stupid Child! I am talking about REAL socialist countries, not your theoretical fantasies, that are absolutely irrelevant to reality.
And what "knowledge/authority on the subject" you have?
What's your credentials? Education? Experience?
(Besides reading some fairy tales)
ssmusic214 1 year ago
@ssmusic214 pre socialist stage of the "proletarian dictatorship" which is not a good place to be. In any sence. But not worse then libertarina states like liberia for example. In fact if i had to chose between living in the soviet union at it's worst times and liberia i would pick the soviet union and i thikn any sane person would do the same.
This does not do much to credit or discretid any of the ideologies. as many external factors can be claimed. But it gives perspective.
surlagachette2 1 year ago
@surlagachette2 Libertarianism was not the cause of Liberia's downfall.
Darrknox 1 year ago
OOOH! Great! Let us all clap for this sissified scrawny ass low IQ inferiority complex having bitch that has never worked a day in his life!
irontreepatriot 1 year ago
oooow man, this video needs a transcript track
clearmenser 1 year ago
Great post guys, but audio was poor :-(
bagzie 1 year ago
He made his reputation in linguistics and then, extremely impressed with his own achievements in this field, felt free to venture into other areas which he pompously inundates with streams of uninformed opinions.
jscottupton 1 year ago
@jscottupton Let's see, you have Queen's 'We Are the Champions' video, another presumptuous video by creepy free-marketeer sallow-complexioned white-guy HowtheWorldWorks, and video on the Federal Reserve favorited to your channel. Let me guess: Your life ambition is to strike it big in the stock market or business because capitalism is God's plan for America. Do I have you pegged?
Otherwise, which of Chomsky's opinions do you feel are are uninformed? Score one for free intellectual inquiry.
bapyou 1 year ago 8
@jscottupton
"pompously inundates"?? Please explain. Message me. I would love to hear this
DesmondE 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The evolution of recent human history has been dominated by minority control over the majority, the rulers have come up with nessesary illusion for compliance and servitude of the many, Science and technology has created a world of plenty, but the market mechanism is about artificial scarcity to perpetuate poverty and exploitation in a modality of war,enviornmental destructions,animal cruelty and so on . The new paradigm is sharing the Earth for our collective needs and wellbeing
arzoyan 1 year ago
The writer must write in order to live. However, he by no means should write to make money. - Karl Marx
Chomsky is not a capitalist. He is an educator.
Tougemaster06 1 year ago
I'll take a picture for ya'll of the gigantic Noam Chomsky mural on the building next to mine since most of you seem to be jockin his dick.
migsluck1 1 year ago
It's difficult to hear him due to the audio , lol !
26mel1 1 year ago
does he charge for his lectures and has he ever been to scotland ?
murray1234567891011 1 year ago
Money property system is ROOT of ALL problems, it creates/exploits scarcity, never creates enough jobs, allows people on top to control everyone/thing
1. people need food, water, energy, etc.
2. sharing all resources and knowledge allows maximum cooperative efficiency
3. creating an abundance of all our needs makes money, gov, crime obsolete
4. automating the production distribution, frees up humanity to no longer be wage slaves to governments or corporations
v=YxPPnCW6sMo
v=yPmHaTirnCc
dontblockmedk 1 year ago 26
@dontblockmedk
what your saying sounds nice but leads to inherent problems as well. Such talk is like saying we should never have a recession and expect it or humans should and must never make mistakes. Sounds nice but doesn't work out well in reality. The problem, the root of all problems is people. One of the biggest problems is fear and or entitement. People. Look back at many problems in human history and you will see these two factors at work. Need to work on them and work together.
Ryukikon 1 year ago
@dontblockmedk I think anarchocapitalism would do. Through a free market system where people pay in exchange for value, entrepreneurs would be motivated to, not only move the existing resources to where the demand is, but also to find NEW ways to combine the existing resources to satisfy demand. Otherwise, what would motivate people to share their resources, knowledge, develop technology. Force? Also, corporations are government creations to attract investment by granting limited liability.
altaris2011 1 year ago
@a Central control is NOT necessary when you have DECENTRALIZED automated self sufficient cities. The questions.
1 Can we produce abundant food, water, energy, etc for everyone or not?
2 Do we have the technology to automate most of the work or not?
If no, prove it.
If yes, 'money for labor' is OBSOLETE. So the only logical system is to produce abundance and just distribute it. There can only be force when there is NOT enough for everyone, ONLY with abundance EVERYONE is FREE. GET IT.
dontblockmedk 1 year ago
@dontblockmedk what I make and earn is mine. no one else's. Keep your hands off and don't bother me and I will not bother you.
Bother me and I bother you.
From a gun owning Ron Paul supporter. a real libretarian unlike this bald has been.
tonylee1973 11 months ago
@tonylee1973 The world belongs to everyone. The revolution is NOW.
WATCH ZEITGEIST 3
v=4Z9WVZddH9w
dontblockmedk 11 months ago
@dontblockmedk "makes crime obsolete" Are you sure? How can you assert that in a system that is not monetarily driven that people will always be content?
lancertriangle 9 months ago
@dontblockmedk If you lived in communism, then who would make sure that I as an individual was getting my fair share ?
ToxinalX 9 months ago
Comment removed
kingofqwerty 9 months ago
@ToxinalX Well who makes sure you get anything when you're at the mercy of capitalists? In a capitalist system you have to give away most of what you make to the exploiting capitalist class.
kingofqwerty 9 months ago
@kingofqwerty I never said anyone did, because capitalism doesn't revolve around "making sure" others get what they want. Communism in its pure form however does. So who would ultimately decide who gets what ? Who would make that law if all are equal ?
Capitalism revolves around the fact that neither full socialism nor modern nanny states work. But capitalism can both spread the allready existing wealth around, as well as it provides a good ground for ideologies that advocate small goverments.
ToxinalX 9 months ago
@ToxinalX "Modern nanny states" do work - My country, Sweden is often referred to as one of the most successful states there is and has bounced back from the economic crisis perhaps the best of all European countries. It is argued by economic scientists that welfare is a free lunch because you get every penny back that you invest in it. Communism is probably undesirable,I think companies should aim to have flat hierarchies and there shouldn't be too large gaps in income btw. workers and bosses.
kingofqwerty 9 months ago
@kingofqwerty Jag antar att jag kunde skrivit alltsammans på svenska i stället då. :P
Sweden did better than most european countries simply because we elected a new goverment consisting of the most pro-capitalist political parties in our country instead of just spending more money and continuing to bail out every single failed company or bank "for the sake of the common good".
Also, a "nanny state" is not exactly the same as a lesser capitalist country, but Sweden is still a great example.
ToxinalX 9 months ago 3
@ToxinalX Well... I think the reason is as far as I know, because not many banks and companies needed to be bailed out in Sweden thanks to the "protectionist" financial system there inherited from the years of the social democracy... but I might be wrong...
vitaminasHM 4 months ago
@vitaminasHM According to keynesian economics (And a lot of Swedish economists) this would be verry accurate.
But If you study the works of Milton Friedman, FA Hayek and "austrian economics", you will soon come to realise that the only thing the Social Democrats brought was a gigantic bubble in housing. Sound familiar ?
A set of rules that the former PM was not slow to take advantage of, buying a house at a slightly lowered cost of 12,5 milj, while getting EU subsidies.
ToxinalX 4 months ago
@dontblockmedk spot on comment! Have you read Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality? He speaks of the first man fencing off private property as leading to all social inequality among society. A good read.
enigmism4life 7 months ago
@enigmism4life Some say money is the root of all evil but I think Rouseau is right 'property' is.
Even John Locke, who introduced the concept of 'private property' that was used as the foundation of capitalism, would not recognize what it has become. Check out this vid.
v=b4JsCEYpIUA
Please WATCH ZEITGEIST 3
v=4Z9WVZddH9w
dontblockmedk 7 months ago
@dontblockmedk you ever heard of the zeitgeist movement? that and a resource based economy are very similar to what you talk about.
Crabbensmasher 6 months ago
@Crabbensmasher You are exactly right. The only people who are against ZM RBE are the rich who are raping everyone, and the idiots who have been brainwashed into thinking they might someday be one of the rich.
It is really pathetic though because the rich elites will NEVER let any of these 'capitalism defenders' 'american dream believers' become rich. It is almost funny if it wasn't so sad. The good news is that money property system is failing and we have a chance to have a better world.
dontblockmedk 6 months ago
@dontblockmedk Well said. The original concept of american capitalism and the "american dream" type thing actually didn't seem so bad based on what I've learned. Things like what the early US presidents were known to believe in. Eventually though, large corporations, rich elites, and of course the central bank (learned from zietgeist) skewed the entire thing. All fueled by an out of control greed that really degrades people. It's time for us to flip over a new leaf and do away with money.
Crabbensmasher 6 months ago
Comment removed
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 3 months ago
@S Automation and cheap labor = NO JOBS = capitalism FAILED = Money is OBSOLETE.
And love, compassion and sharing are also human nature and way more powerful than selfishness and greed, without the negative effects.
We can use the scientific method to optimize and automate the production and distribution of all necessities of life for all people.
WATCH Z3 here and learn the facts, then you can become part of the solution.
v=4Z9WVZddH9w
dontblockmedk 3 months ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH What a moron.
SanguineBullet667 1 week ago
What happened to the audio???
Someideasandstuff 1 year ago
is there any way libertarian socialist could be in u.s.?
hfhghjhbjhjhhh 1 year ago
@hfhghjhbjhjhhh
They don´t seem to be able to grasp the concept
surlagachette2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That's right! Wow! That makes so much sense! Wow! I just love things when they are gay! I just love it when men take it in the shitter! Fuck capitalism! Fuck free enterprise! Just bend over and take it in the shitter! If we can get control of America we can rule the entire world! Fuck capitalism! Socialism is the way! If everybody takes it in the shitter then everybody will be equal! Do you understand? Do you? Take it in the shitter for socialism!
quifflington 1 year ago
Capitalism, Corporate or State dominated or In It together is the wage slavery of immense humanity for abstract process of Capital accumulation and concentration for the elite, 250 top corporations control over 1/3 of the world GDP. More than 3 billion workers are on 2 dollars a day. Capitalism is template of perpetual war,oppression,enviornmental destructions,animal cruelty and suffering, A dehumanising distorting minority imposition in thier inatiable drive for ever more Profit no matter what
arzoyan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The evolution of recent human history has been dominated by minority control over the majority, the rulers have come up with nessesary illusion for compliance and servitude of the many, Science and technology has created a world of plenty, but the market mechanism is about artificial scarcity to perpetuate poverty and exploitation in a modality of war,enviornmental destructions,animal cruelty and so on . The new paradigm is sharing the Earth for our collective needs and wellbeing.
arzoyan 1 year ago 5
nice noise
JeroenUyttendaele 1 year ago
There are several laws, orders, and rules that just "happen." They even evolve from the most finite levels of the universe where phenomena are fundamentally random and unpredictable. Hawking said the universe is a big casino and he is correct. but it is a very ordered universe beyond the finite level.
Point being any idea that government and collective interference being required for order is unsupported in nature.
mongoose704 1 year ago
Comment removed
HoffaIsBackAgain 1 year ago
I have NO DOUBT that you people that call yourselves libertarian socialists believe in and cherish individual liberties.
but you could not be socialist as pure socialism rejects the individual in favor of the collective. Liberty and life are synonymous. A collective isn't alive therefore it cannot ever be free. The idea of collective liberty is something that just cannot exist.
IOW A true socialist must oppose individual liberty, especially property rights.
mongoose704 1 year ago
Comment removed
HoffaIsBackAgain 1 year ago
@Tougemaster06 Lmao, so Goldman Sachs and Microsoft are gonna be tyrants by selling us stuff?
I see you have absolutely no knowledge on economics, or how the world works.
If you're against freedom, then you're against humanity. You're obviously a leftist to the core.
Sivels 1 year ago
maybe someone could attempt to do subtitles?
sefjaguar 1 year ago
that girl by chomsky wants to give chomsky a blow job
scatcoitus 1 year ago
Libertarian on social issues, drink, fuck, shoot, whatever and whoever you want and socialist in economy....me I'm a light socialist heavy libertarian on individual rights. The people are dead UP WITH ME!
hububub 1 year ago
@hububub Shoot whoever you want? That's... no.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
Libertarian Socialist are the only true libertarians. Libertarians in America are referred to as "vulgar libertarians", aka Anarcho-capitalist.
Tougemaster06 1 year ago 31
@Tougemaster06
Socialism and libertarianism are kinda at odds with each other? Explain..
Minhist 1 year ago
@Minhist
"Libertarian" originally referred to a strain of anarchist socialism -- people have no business making claims on each other beyond an expectation of ethical behavior, but that ethical behavior is still important to observe. In particular, libertarian socialists (as opposed to state-capitalist or neo-feudalist "Libertarians") recognize property as a social practice which must be maintained, to the extent that it is maintained at all, through continual consent.
MManuRere 1 year ago
libertarianism and socialism are contradictory, how can you be free if you have the government telling you what you can and cant do....
TheSophist2007 1 year ago
@TheSophist2007 Because socialism has nothing to do with government lol. Socialism is a socio-economic theory. Has nothing to directly do with politics
Tougemaster06 1 year ago 5
@Tougemaster06 exactly, true socialism/communism abolishes government, thats one of the things i like about it. what we see in america is corporatism, america in no longer a country but a corporation.
DEATHBYSOCIALIST 1 year ago
@DEATHBYSOCIALIST Socialism can or can not abolish government. Communism does, though.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@Tougemaster06 Absolutely correct.
coryskawaffle 1 year ago
@Tougemaster06 yeah, sure. Just a shame it is a fantasy and not rooted in reality. How can you abolish private property w/o a coercive state? Libertarian my ***
Sivels 1 year ago
Actually, read about the history of Spanish anarchism. It was done with a great degree of success until destroyed by the fascists. There were self managed groups of citizens, no private property, no centralized authority.
Simbelmyne13 1 year ago
@Simbelmyne13 Interesting.. Maybe I will read up on that. But my point is, sure you can have lots of communities or places where people live like that. But you can't make it into a system, because you would need a coercive state.
Another thing is, human interaction of resources is so complex on a large scale that there's no way anyone can know how it works. That's why you need a price mechanism.
Sivels 1 year ago
I encourage you to read about it, certainly. I don't think you need a coercive state. At least in the case I was talking about, there was no such thing. The anarchist ideas had been circulating for almost a century before then and there was a lively intellectual community among the proletariat. When they instituted it, it was a popular movement (i.e. not imposed from above). I'm not sure what you mean in your last point. Currency? Perhaps, but I'm not so sure.
Simbelmyne13 1 year ago
@Simbelmyne13
I suggest you read into some economics (basically the study of how resources are distributed between people, especially free-market/laissez-faire economics (based on the non-aggression principle).
If you're interested in anarchism, you should also look into libertarian anarchism.. I suggest you look up Stefbot on youtube. Trust me, he's the real thing.
Sivels 1 year ago
I'm not saying I have any extensive knowledge of economics but as ecology grad student, I am extremely interested in ecological economics. It ties economics to knowledge of biological/ecological systems and principles such as carrying capacity. From what I can tell so far, it is far superior to standard economics, which seems to make far too many assumptions and is very subject to ideology. Thanks for the suggestion.
Simbelmyne13 1 year ago
@Simbelmyne13 You can't say it's superior to economics in the macroeconomic sense, that's an absurd statement for various reasons. I don't know anything about ecologial economic systems, but maybe it would work for some people some places.
Laissez-fairez economics holds that no one should have a monopoly on currency (fiat-money) and would therefore invite various models that would work for different people. The thing about laissez-faire economics is, what works will survive and develop.
Sivels 1 year ago
It's not absurd. It's a different approach to economic ideas. Incorporating the biological world and ecological principles. Generally, how energy flows through the system and resources are created, destroyed, or maintained. As I understand so far this is all lacking from standard economics and it shows.
I wasn't even talking about free market ideas. Anyways, unless you put some sort of protections in place,it wouldn't work. Powerful institutions will too often use power to leverage more of it.
Simbelmyne13 1 year ago
@Simbelmyne13 Yes OF COURSE you need protective institutions. In other words protective 'force' or potential 'violence' in order to protect something (which is legitimate). But why should you have a monopoly on violence/force/threat of force?? In other words, you can private profit OR non-profit protective institutions. You don't need a state for that.
I sincerely hope you're not saying your system should be forced on people, b/c then this conversation is over.
Sivels 1 year ago
What? I think you misread a lot of what I say. Any change in society must be democratic. Formerly, I gave the example of a movement that was fully so w/ workers organizing themselves and managing their own society. If we seek change we must convince people through reasoned arguments backed with empirical evidence.
Private protective institutions would likely ensure mostly those with wealth would be protected. Not unlike how many corporations use money to leverage gov protections and subsidies.
Simbelmyne13 1 year ago
@Simbelmyne13 You can't change the state. The nature of any state or government is to grow larger (even the ones *designed* to be small and limited, although have simply evolved from monarchy) and when the happens corporations and private interests will naturally try to influence the beast in their favor.
Logically and empirically statism is complete disaster.
Change and development happens spontaneously, it's not something you decide upon democratically.
Sivels 1 year ago
By that logic, the civil rights movement "just happened" instead of being the effort of many individuals freely working together and convincing others (i.e. democracy). Change towards state capitalism "just happened". It also makes no sense to appeal to others to adopt your own anarcho-capitalist view.
I gave you an example of a society that worked together to implement the vision they agreed on. It wasn't some unexplainable force of nature. Sry I can't debate any more. Got research to do.
Simbelmyne13 1 year ago
@Simbelmyne13 Well of course you can't convince people because they don't see the evil that the state is. Statism in the future will be seen like slavery was: evil. But as the national keeps getting higer, as the wars start to become more numerous, as more terrorist hysteria is wipped up, the more people they imprison, the higer taxes get, the more worthless money get, the more they print money, the more they bailout private companies, the more people will be forced to see the evils of statism.
Sivels 1 year ago
@Sivels
Slavery is an great point because that is exactly what the socialist state is: Slavery. It's the same with Corporatism.
Now how can they reconcile slavery with the so-called "libertarian" of their socialism?
mongoose704 1 year ago
@mongoose704 It's like the Venus project, it's mental fantasyland.
Sivels 1 year ago
@Sivels. Where would a fantasyland exist but in the mind? I think the people at the venus project would have thought their idea's through.
richi3mass3 1 year ago
@richi3mass3 Yeah, but when it is applied to reality it will result in catastrophe and destruction.
Sivels 1 year ago
@Tougemaster06 define true..
Sivels 1 year ago
@Sivels I mean true in the context of the conversation, of classic libertarianism which embraces more democratic ideals; which are more or less is synonymous with what are known as left wing ideals. Vulgar libertarianism observes more conservative ideals, which have a very socially authoritative nature and are very conflicting with the ideals of liberty.
Tougemaster06 1 year ago
@Tougemaster06 Conservativism is really yesterdays progressivism and has little to do with real capitalism. Capitalism is not the evil. The slavemaster-slave relationship is.
Real libertarianism is all about maximum freedom from coercion. (in my view anacho-capitalism and objectivism are the solid defenders of liberty).
Sivels 1 year ago
@Sivels I would disagree fully. Anarch-Capitalism would give birth to an extremely tyrannical future on the basis that you commodify all aspects of human existence for the sake of the capitalist system; while eliminating the existence of a state that allows the public to have a discourse against the destructive actions of Capitalist. It would literally be like letting Microsoft and Goldman Sachs run the country with no constitution or government.
Tougemaster06 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tougemaster06 @Tougemaster06 Lmao, so Goldman Sachs and Microsoft are gonna be tyrants by selling us stuff?
I see you have absolutely no knowledge on economics, or how the world works.
If you're against freedom, then you're against humanity. You're obviously a leftist to the core.
Sivels 1 year ago
@Tougemaster06 Once again how can you be libertarian when liberty is essentially human and individual and socialism rejects the individual in favor of the collective? To reject the individual IS to reject liberty.
Furthermore if socialism, as one person erroneously claimed, is public control of the means of production...how can you reconciliate that with individual property rights? To control production we have to control property. You therefore must reject individual property rights.
mongoose704 1 year ago
@Tougemaster06 And if you reject individual property rights, you are NOT libertarian by any perversion of the definition.
mongoose704 1 year ago
@Tougemaster06 what a load of rubbish. all right wing anarchism advocates is that people be left alone to do whatever they want without the coercive force of the state. that is the only true anarchism.
refer to libertarian socialists using the true definition - communism - the stage after socialism when the government is supposed to wither away.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics Right Wing Libertarianism says let people a lone to do whatever they want, even if it involves exploiting other people. They are still Capitalist, and they are still after the vile maxims of power. They don't want the state to tell them what to do. They have no problem with the state protecting their property and enforcing those property rights on other people. They don't hate the state. They hate the democratic state that works for all people, even those with no property.
Tougemaster06 1 year ago
@Tougemaster06 'They have no problem with the state protecting their property and enforcing those property rights on other people'
you obviously have no understanding of what anarchism is mate if you think that's what they want
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics Chomsky's libertarianism is quite different from Conservative Libertarianism.
Tougemaster06 1 year ago
@Tougemaster06 there is no such thing as conservative libertarianism. conservatives like big government because they want to force their morals on people socially.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics You should come to America. We have conservatives that call themselves libertarian..
Tougemaster06 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics American Libertarianism is basically synonymous with Anarcho-Capitalism. Tougemaster clearly has an understanding of the difference between the american and international concept of libertarianism, but you don't appear to.
Pogs4Fathersday 1 year ago
@Pogs4Fathersday ever read reason magazine mate? they represent the mainstream on libertarian thought in the US. and NO they are NOT anarchists. they advocate a limited form of government. so quite frankly its you who doesn't appear to understand true libertarianism.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@Pogs4Fathersday There are many forms of libertarianism and they all overlap in areas but are vastly different. Anarcho-capitalism is NOT American libertarianism. Libertarian SOCIALIST is the international view. Anarcho-capitalism is basically libertarian socialism with individualism and private property. Minarchism, is a step passed anarcho, where we have basic functions of government, but instead of an ever expanding government, it is just small or large enough to do the job when needed
Clyaton 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics Actually there is, because there are more than one form of conservative... fiscal and social issues dealing with values/morals... So I am a FISCALLY conservative libertarian (minarchist/minimalist like Ron Paul or Judge Napolitano), but besides pro-life, I am LIBERAL on freedom issues like the drug war.. There are also different forms of liberalism as well of course. Keep researching! No one knows it all, and I've very recently researched this topic so there's my 2Cents
Clyaton 1 year ago
@Clyaton mate look up where the concept of libertarianism originated. it came from classical liberalism which advocated smaller government, the individual's rights and freedoms as the supreme value. government was to have merely a very small role mainly to do with defence. you can call yourself what you like, however just because you make a claim does not make you a libertarian anymore than the chinese calling themselves communist make them so.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics I HAVE.. I realize what OUR definition.. I don't know what's with the light attack... I was merely being specific.. I read Reason as well as check the Cato Institute regularly. I am the libertarian you are talking about... I just accept that there are other definitions out there. Just like socialism, where socialism means public owning the means of production, where as there are other definitions like forms of government redistribution. Get what I'm saying?
Clyaton 1 year ago
@Clyaton well actually they both have a definition. socialism is the government controlling the means of production, while the groups advocating redistribution of wealth etc are generally called social democrats/modern liberals.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics CLASSICAL liberalism, is actually pretty damned new, we are 'right' libertarians, they are 'left' libertarians.. Outside the U.S. though Libertarian socialism is redundant, so if you call yourself a libertarian abroad, just be aware that it takes on a whole new, socialist, meaning.
Clyaton 1 year ago
@Clyaton what on earth are talking about? classical liberalism is pretty damned new? actually its very old. the 'father' of classical liberalism is widely regarded as john locke who was born in 1632, and his theories were expanded on in the 1800s by people like mills and adam smith who wrote 'the wealth of nations.'
classical liberalism came first, then came modern liberalism which is what you call 'libertarian socialism', then a new wave of classical libs occurred called the neoliberals.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@Clyaton and no, if you call yourself a libertarian abroad then you are not viewed automatically as a socialist. i live in australia where libertarianism is regarded as being about smaller government intervention and more freedom. our main right wing political party is called the liberal party because that is how liberalism is still defined in many places outside of the US.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics That simply means that the American libertarianism is spreading................................ Besides, a lot of the ideas are based on Austrian economics, ideas from people that were from other countries.. A lot of American politics is your politics and vice-versa, I'm merely saying there are different views, of the same damned words, you can't just automatically say someone is wrong when they tell you what they know about the libertarianism they have been taught at home.
Clyaton 1 year ago
@Clyaton american libertarianism is spreading? as I said before, someone can call themselves a libertarian, communist or fascist but if their ideological views do not match the accepted definition of the world that does not make them so.
you can call yourself a libertarian or a classical liberal but if you do not believe in smaller government, less intervention, spending, individual autonomy, sorry you are not one.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@AussiePolitics That's not accurate. A libertarian socialist can support greater government interventions when it means mitigating corporate domination, just as a classical liberal will do the same. For example, Adam Smith called on the government to intervene in favor of workers, in stark contrast to the mythology that has proliferated about his ideas.
mdoob11 1 year ago
@Tougemaster06 I don't know why so many people are agreeing with you.. Your statement is blatantly false.. There is more than one meaning to Libertarian... Luckily, because it's unrealistic, and would simply be a different type of rule of the majority (tyranny). If we ever got there, it wouldn't last long, and it would suck to boot is what I'm saying.. Now, minimalist, or minarchist libertarianism, is what we see today in America. Based on Locke, Jefferson, const. private property, etc.
Clyaton 1 year ago
@Tougemaster06 Now, much of anarcho-capitalism thought has overlapped into society... But no American Libertarian wants to eliminate government entirely.. So they are minarchist, not anarcho-capitalist.
Clyaton 1 year ago
@Clyaton Umm...well...anarchists also don't want a lack of order.They want to "police themselves" and are too much of pussies to call it government because at the end of the day that's all it is. However, instead of a corrupt bunch of wall street greedy goons that think they know what's best for everyone it's a bunch of smelly "anarchists" who think they know what's best for everyone. Same tune different instrument.
migsluck1 1 year ago
@migsluck1 I would say a lack of order and policing themselves is simply changing a couple words.. But I agree with your overall statement. In an anarcho system, I'm sure many things would work fine, but who really cares? It won't happen anyway, and the subject just brings up 10x more questions than it answers. Supposedly, society would work out all those problems just fine. Not all services are that profitable. Courts, security, best done by someone accountable to us all.
Clyaton 1 year ago
@Tougemaster06 "Anarcho-capitalism"LOL iv been calling it: Sub-Nationalized Socialism
diceyLee 1 year ago
@Tougemaster06 Interesting how you folks can actually combine two words that oppose each other and actually think it's legit. Libertarianism promotes individual rights and personal freedoms while Socialism is a concentration on the communal whole. You can't have the latter without sacrificing the former. Interesting how he, Noam Chomsky, dares to call himself a "libertarian socialist/anarchist" when he himself has made so much money from his books etc. Blatantly capitalistic pig.
migsluck1 1 year ago
@migsluck1 And you're yet another person who confuses Libertarian-Socialism with the Libertarian Party. They are two completely different things. The Libertarian Party was started in 1970. Libertarian-Socialism pre-dates the LP by more than 100 years. Also, the last bit of your comment is hilarious. Libertarian-Socialism doesn't prohibit people from making a profit and is actually against STATE Socialism. Why can't you be bothered with reading up on an ideology before criticizing it?
moonshiny74 1 year ago
@moonshiny74 Oh c'mon. I consider myself to be a Libertarian and I sure as hell am not part of the LP. I know the differences between Big C and little c if that's what you're talking about. Funny you say Libertarian-Socialism doesn't prohibit people from making a profit because the majority of "libertarian-socialists" on forums I've posted, AnarchistBlackCat for one, have all said otherwise. I've been involved with anarchists for the past 15 years of my life and it's utter hypocrisy.
migsluck1 1 year ago
@Tougemaster06 You are a vulgar moron with a retard squad of 27 strong. Congrats.
migsluck1 1 year ago
@Tougemaster06 yooo we should make a liberation organisation we need to have political influence even if its small :))))
timetochilli 1 year ago
@Tougemaster06
@MManuRere
@bagzie
@jscottupton
@DesmondE
@bapyou
Check it:
ww w. an archa dia. c om
StarfishBingo 1 year ago
I think that libertarian socialism should be changed to democratic socialism, I think that would be a more acurate title.
enomarekim 1 year ago
@enomarekim ya thats about right,
but its more about participatory democracy.
have you checked out parecon off Znet?
Southwestrepresent 1 year ago
@enomarekim there already is something called democratic socialism. its state socialism that allows from small businesses and maintains a party electoral system. so you could vote them out.
Clement Attlee was one for instance.
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
indeed, I should have been more specific.
aSheeple 2 years ago
The word libertarian should be changed to Social anarchism.
It just gets too confusing with all these ideologies.
SENTRY000 2 years ago 3
if we'd change the word libertarian to social anarchism N. Chomsky would be a Social Anarchist Socialist. I guess.
GodOfTheInternets 2 years ago
The libertarian socialists (and anarchists) can make a claim of seniority WRT the term "libertarian" -- we were using it first. If the capitalist-authoritarians who have appropriated the term want to avoid confusion, they can call themselves "fundamentalist capitalists" or "capitalist neo-feudalists".
MManuRere 2 years ago 6
minus the libertarian tendency to favor unrestricted capitalism
aSheeple 2 years ago
Except that's not what it is. Social anarchism? Why? Libertarianism is NOT about social anarchy, just limited government. Social anarchy would be the complete lack of government or laws. This is not libertarianism.
amanuscar 1 year ago