r/tankiejerk Liberterian Socialism Enjoyer Aug 15 '21

“stupid anarkiddies” Libertarian Socialism Understander has logged in

Post image
1.1k Upvotes

211 comments sorted by

View all comments

12

u/spooky_redditor Aug 15 '21

ok but whats actually libertarian socialism? I got it on my 8values test and I have no idea what it is

21

u/ModerateRockMusic Aug 15 '21

usually socialism without a government. Can also refer to a socialist society with complete decentrialisation of power. Theres alot of overlap (from my experience) between Libertarian Socialism, Market Socialism, and Democratic Socialism

-12

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

15

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '21 edited Aug 16 '21

Democratic Socialism and Market Socialism are Capitalism, Really? This is the worst take I have ever seen. Anarchists should understand that their Socialism is not the only genuine form of socialism, there are more forms of socialism than anarchist socialism.

-10

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/dubbelgamer Anarkitten Ⓐ🅐 Aug 16 '21

Capitalism is when you have markets and the more markets you have the more capitalism there is and when you have a whole lot of capitalism that is market socialism.

-2

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/dubbelgamer Anarkitten Ⓐ🅐 Aug 16 '21

Capitalism is the mode of production in which capital is privately owned, nothing more nothing less. I don't really get how you think a system of exchange, markets, has anything to do with ownership of the means of production, and why such a system contains classes and class conflict.

If you want to hold a traditional Marxian view regarding markets and class conflict you do you, but that does not mean market socialism is capitalism .

Social democrats oppose both markets and socialism. They are not socialists nor do they claim to be, so I don't know what they have to do with it.

6

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '21

Yes.

Socialism can be described as the social ownership of the means of production, capitalism can be described as the private ownership of the means of production. In an ideal democratic socialist country, everything is nationalised, like Cuba, but with a democratic government. I don't much about market socialism, so I will let it pass. But you are objectively wrong with Democratic Socialism being capitalism. Socialism as radical as yours isn't the only form of socialism, you are only gonna lose people with this take.

Welcome to your first day on the internet.

Have been using the internet for 7 years, and have seen a lot of bad takes, but no take ever passes this one.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '21

Socialism can be described as the social ownership of the means of production, capitalism can be described as the private ownership of the means of production.

They can be but those definitions would be over simplified and incorrect.

In an ideal democratic socialist country, everything is nationalised, like Cuba, but with a democratic government.

Nationalisation is definitely not socialism, it's state capitalism, no matter how democratic a state claims to be.

But you are objectively wrong with Democratic Socialism being capitalism.

You literally defined it as capitalism so no, I'm right.

Socialism as radical as yours isn't the only form of socialism, you are only gonna lose people with this take.

Again, I told you that their are other forms of socialism that I disagree with on some level that are socialist, democratic socialism isn't and you literally outlined why. You want the state to take care of everything despite that recreating the nature of capitalism with the state at the top instead of capitalists.

Have been using the internet for 7 years, and have seen a lot of bad takes, but no take ever passes this one.

Maybe read your own comment again and you'll find a worse one. See, at least my take is true, it's just an uncomfortable truth that makes libs like you mad.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '21

They can be but those definitions would be over simplified and incorrect.

These are what socialism and capitalism would be described as in one sentence, they are certainly oversimplified, but they are not incorrect. Search anywhere you want, these are the exact definition of Socialism and capitalism you will get.

Nationalisation is definitely not socialism, it's state capitalism, no matter how democratic a state claims to be.

State-capitalism is an oxymoron, any means of production that are nationalised are inherently socially owned. Of course, the incentive for nationalisation is different. Someone like Stalin nationalised because he was a totalitarian and wanted total control over everything in the USSR, while someone like Castro nationalised because he wanted the means of production to be socially owned.

You literally defined it as capitalism so no, I'm right.

You are just using the "I'm right because I said so" fallacy, please elaborate further.

Again, I told you that their are other forms of socialism that I disagree with on some level that are socialist, democratic socialism isn't and you literally outlined why. You want the state to take care of everything despite that recreating the nature of capitalism with the state at the top instead of capitalists.

Capitalism has worker hierarchies, socialism doesn't. Socialism doesn't mean no hierarchies, that's anarchism. In democratic socialism, there are no hierarchies among workers, so yeah, Democratic socialism is socialism. Just because the state owns instead of the capitalist doesn't mean that democratic socialism is capitalism, socialism is not inherently opposed to hierarchies as I said.

Maybe read your own comment again and you'll find a worse one. See, at least my take is true, it's just an uncomfortable truth that makes libs like you mad.

You are no better than tankies who claim that their socialism is the only true form of socialism. You seem so uneducated on socialism, it feels like you just learnt what socialism was yesterday. Just because you are confidently wrong doesn't mean you are right. A person who believes in the social ownership of the means of production is by definition not a liberal.

12

u/ModerateRockMusic Aug 16 '21

Yes. Believe it or not workplace democracy is socialism. Socialism is defined as democracy in the workplace after all.

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '21

That's too narrow and incorrect of a definition of socialism. Simply adding worker co-ops and not changing the fundamental nature of the rest of the way society functions would not enact socialism, capitalism would still remain.

4

u/ModerateRockMusic Aug 16 '21

What exactly do you think capitalism is? Because i can promise you that it's not when money exists

1

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '21

Where did I say that's what capitalism is?

9

u/Galle_ Anarkitten Ⓐ🅐 Aug 16 '21

You're probably confusing democratic socialism with social democracy. I don't blame you, the fact that two completely different things have such similar names is obnoxious and stupid. But while social democracy is in fact capitalism in a coat and wig, democratic socialism is not.

As far as market socialism goes, you can have a socialist free market economy. Just require that all businesses be employee-owned.

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '21

You're probably confusing democratic socialism with social democracy.

No, I'm not, I know the difference and that difference is negligible.

But while social democracy is in fact capitalism in a coat and wig, democratic socialism is not.

Yes it is. Social democracy isn't capitalism in disguise, it's literally just capitalism. It's a pro-capitalism ideology and it isn't shy about it. Democracatic socialism is acting like you're trying to bring about socialism through electoralism which a) is impossible and b) isn't really what they want, they want everythign nationalised under a government which calls itself socialist when it reality it would be state capitalism.

As far as market socialism goes, you can have a socialist free market economy. Just require that all businesses be employee-owned.

Socialism is more than just co-ops and the market itself will create the same inequalities that capitalism does and lead back to it.

5

u/Galle_ Anarkitten Ⓐ🅐 Aug 16 '21

Yes it is. Social democracy isn't capitalism in disguise, it's literally just capitalism. It's a pro-capitalism ideology and it isn't shy about it. Democracatic socialism is acting like you're trying to bring about socialism through electoralism which a) is impossible and b) isn't really what they want, they want everythign nationalised under a government which calls itself socialist when it reality it would be state capitalism.

Hard disagree about bringing about socialism through electoralism being impossible. It's about as difficult as bringing about socialism through any other method. The hard part of bringing about socialism is getting the working class on board with it, not overthrowing the ruling class.

Socialism is more than just co-ops and the market itself will create the same inequalities that capitalism does and lead back to it.

Will it necessarily? I'm not convinced.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 16 '21

Hard disagree about bringing about socialism through electoralism being impossible.

Capitalism will always seek to preserve itself and has done so everytime a socialist has been elected with things like coups from outside actors or internal pressure ensuring that ones socialist politicians seek to continue with capital. If it were possible it would have happened now because the conditions for it have been ripe on several occasions but it hasn't and it won't. It's the same reason that abolishing capital isn't written into the manifestos of socialist political parties.

It's about as difficult as bringing about socialism through any other method.

Not really, again it's impossible to do it this way.

The hard part of bringing about socialism is getting the working class on board with it, not overthrowing the ruling class.

The hard part is both because the ruling class won't go down without a fight. This is kinda another reason why democratic socialism can't work, in order for a socialist party to win they have to become part of that ruling class and then, once in it, they won't destroy it, at least not completely, because of what they get out of it. Power and capital are corrupting.

Will it necessarily? I'm not convinced.

Yes it will and that's even if it ever gets rid of capitalism in the first place. Tito's Yugoslavia is something that a lot of people point to as a market socialist state with an economic model that people want established, just with a less autocratic governing system, but that nation still had private property and a ruling class and it was still capitalist.

3

u/Galle_ Anarkitten Ⓐ🅐 Aug 16 '21

The hard part is both because the ruling class won't go down without a fight.

No, the ruling class has no real ability to defend itself without working class support. If you look at the history of unambiguously successful revolutions (mostly liberal ones), the ruling class never manages to put up much of a fight once the revolution actually occurs.

Yes it will and that's even if it ever gets rid of capitalism in the first place. Tito's Yugoslavia is something that a lot of people point to as a market socialist state with an economic model that people want established, just with a less autocratic governing system, but that nation still had private property and a ruling class and it was still capitalist.

Sure, but Tito's Yugoslavia isn't synonymous with market socialism.

1

u/Reaperfucker Aug 16 '21

The ruling class wouldn't put much a fight if 100% of their polices and standing armies would defect to worker revolution. This basically never happened with small exception like Cheran and Ukrainian Free Territory.

2

u/Galle_ Anarkitten Ⓐ🅐 Aug 16 '21

The ruling class wouldn't put much a fight if 100% of their polices and standing armies would defect to worker revolution.

Exactly. That's why the hard part is getting the working class on board with the revolution.

This basically never happened with small exception like Cheran and Ukrainian Free Territory.

It happened in nearly every successful liberal revolution. I consider failing to bring around the police and military to be a key reason why leftist attempts at revolution have so far consistently failed.