Social Libertarianism

Urwrong - Trump is a break with this. Few Trump voters are believers in Authority, everyone of us laughs at how quirky and human he is and how human he makes his opponents look. Whereas Obama was and is basically a God to his fans. He even had me convinced for some years at first, that he was some kind of phenomenon.

You cant be right about everything.

But could a government be formed that altered that fact?

Or is it really only about DNA, race, and gender?

What about a government so entrenched in early self-reliance education and training that being an adult meant graduating into a society of respectable self-governing people? That is what the British have attempted. I just don’t think they went about it quite properly.

Read Hobbes and Locke and see why that never was the English plan.

Their method was like a subtle form of inverted Hegel, showing that the citizen is happiest if he is subservient to the Crown.

Socialism is one form of ethical economics and capitalism another.
Socialism’s ethic is egalitarian economics, capitalism’s ethic is noncoercive economics and free competition.
The two are compatible in market socialism, but incompatible in state socialism, coercive social anarchism and an inegalitarian market.

More specifically socialism is the workers/people democratically owning and running the means of productions, whether directly through cooperatives or indirectly through unions and the state.
While theoretically this could still lead to the enormous economic disparaties we see in capitalism, practically it’s highly unlikely.
While I think more tenacious, talented and contributive people should be rewarded, I don’t think some people should be rewarded as much as capitalism does.

Capitalism has a few meanings.
One is a noncoercively competitive market, private property.
Two is the means of production (business, especially big, mechanized and stratified business) being owned and ran by one or a handful of men hiring workers to produce, what’s known as wage labor or disparagingly as wage slavery.

Again I’m a social capitalist.
What this means to me is the bigger, more mechanized and stratified business is, the more unhealthy and unsafe for its workers, consumers and the environment, the less competitors it has (cartels, conglomerates, megacorps, multinationals, oligopolies), the more it’s been subsidized by and received tax breaks from government or found tax loopholes (corporatism), the more I think it should be nationalized and unionized and/or cooperativized and/or kept private but heavily taxed and regulated.

So I’m in favoring of using socialism to mitigate what we see as the worst aspects of capitalism, rather than socializing the market completely.
This is what we do already, except we do it poorly, we let megacorps run amok while the overwhelming majority of us live in or near poverty.

Right

I believe in having a strong military, particularly to counter China, however if we save instead of spend trillions of dollars on the war for drugs and terror, stop subsidizing big business while increasing taxes on and forcing them to pay, if we cut foreign aid, especially to Israel, if we nationalize the central banks, we won’t have to tax the working/middle classes to keep funding the military at this rate.

I don’t worship the elite like you do.
While some of them are more talented, tenacious and contributive than the average pleb, some of them just got lucky or are corrupt.
A lot of capitalism is just being at the right place at the right time.

If Bill Gates hadn’t come along, one of his competitors, who may’ve been more talented and tenacious than him, working on the same or a similar thing, would’ve shortly afterward, yet to the victor goes the spoils, he’s a billionaire while they’re multimillionaires, millionaires or working class.
Bill Gates wasn’t just Bill Gates, he was Bill Gates + his colleagues, family and friends.
You could say he stood on the shoulders of society, with all its donative and state services to accomplish what he did.
It was also a team effort, yet we define property (intellectual property BTW is a contentious thing, even among some libertarians) as such that he got the spoils.
I’m not denying his monumental contributions…altho I heard there was a lot that was underhanded in what he did.

Some people do contribute a lot more than others, but capitalism can grossly exaggerate how much a person has.
We need a synthesis of private and public property.

For me, socialism and progressivism are opposite ideals.

Socialism is strictly about ethical economics, whereas progressivism is broader, it’s non-white, non-Christian and female egalitarianism at best and non-white, non-Christian and female supremacism at worst, about globalism and gun control (political supremacism), carbon taxes, which’re essentially life taxes, compulsory education and vaccination, transhumanism and transnaturalism (scientific supremacism).

Socialism is compatible with populism (which’s what I am, I could summarize all my sociopolitical, economic and even epistemic thinking as populism, and sustainability), because it’s about emancipating the working/middle classes, the majority of citizens, whereas progressivism, like elitism, is about empowering minorities, and foreigners, but unlike elitism these minorities, and foreigners are (perceived to be) marginalized rather than elevated.
Progressivism and elitism are two sides of the anti-populist coin, whereas socialism and conservatism on the one hand (authoritarian populism), and capitalism (not to be conflated with corporatism) and libertarianism on the other (free populism), are two sides of the populist coin.
In fact progressivism has been elitism in practice, and while theoretically it could be used to help women, minorities and foreigners, often it’s used just to further subjugate both them and the majority by the elite.

Elitists co-opted socialism at the turn of the 20th century and progressives at the turn of the 21st, but it’s time for conservatives, libertarians and nationalists to take it back.
Conservative values and norms are the values and norms of the majority of citizens, not the values and norms of elites, minorities or foreigners.

There are a lot of sides to modernity, anything that isn’t preindustrial and the ways of organizing society that went with it is modern.

Right, while I’m not saying luck definitely had nothing to do with it, in all likelihood whites thrived at least in part because our biology and culture better enabled us to.

For me, socialism is just as, if not more compatible with nationalism, but progressives and the new elites are in favor of globalism.

Right, socialists, and capitalists aren’t necessarily ethical, some of them are opportunists (I’m socialist as long as I’m poor, I’m capitalist as long as I’m rich), but you could say that about any ethic, ideology or religion, many devotees are just using them.
However, you can admit you’re an opportunist and still sort of be a socialist or capitalist I think, whereas you can’t be a Christian or Muslim and admit you’re an opportunist.
Socialists and capitalists can be ethical or unethical.

There’s still time to get off that platter, prom.

youtube.com/watch?v=JdEINFm … V2&index=4

In my eyes, Trump is a first step toward an American Aristocracy.

It doesn’t have to be a good or bad step, but it is a first step nonetheless. People are signalling that they want something ‘more’ in life.

There is a void of (moral) leadership, a spiritual deficiency.

I think you’ve got it wrong on a central premise, Gloominary.

Socialism is not about Economics. It’s about how people ought to act toward one-another in society. In this way, yes, Progressivism is a big aspect of Socialism. To be a Socialist, in the Modern sense, is about imposing moral and ethical “rules” upon others. Calling a male who has self-castrated, by a different pronoun than He/She, etc.

This sounds like Communism.

No no, Bill Gates is not an “Elite” to me. From my perspective, Royalist, somebody who is noble in heart and mind, somebody who people look-up to, are inspired by, are Great, Virtuous, Moral, Paternal, are “Elite”. I don’t mean Rich. You have a different idea of “Elite” than me. Elite =/= Rich. Elite = Virtuouso/Great/Skilled/Noble/Paternal.

Socialism is as much ethical economics as capitalism is, they just have different ethics.
The former places equity and equality first, the latter noncoercion.
An egoist can’t be a socialist or capitalist, because they both limit what they can get away with.

State socialism is when a global or national dictatorship or democracy takes over business and runs them in the interests of everyone (the abolishment of exploitation but not equity, people who contribute more are still paid more), state capitalism is when a global or national dictatorship or democracy takes over business and runs them in the interest of itself.
Then there’s market socialism and market capitalism.
In order to prevent state socialism from devolving into state capitalism, of course you need to elect the right people in and the wrong people out.
You need a proper democracy and an armed and informed public.
Of course you want it to be as good as it can be, but It doesn’t have to be perfect, anymore than capitalism does, it just has to be better than the alternative.

Communism is the idea people will one day be sufficiently socially and technologically advanced to start behaving like eusocial insects and naked mole rats without the need for a state.
Marx thought the communist era would begin after the state socialist era ended.
Of course this is just a pipe dream and an affront to common sense, and evolutionary psychology 101, humans are not eusocial animals.

I want a mixed economy, like we have now, but with more socialism and no corporatism.
I believe some businesses should be taken over, not all.
I already went into what sort of businesses I think should be taken over.
I’m also in favor of cooperatives, syndicates and supplementary income for the working/middle classes.

I believe strong leadership can be good, if it benefits the people, which it can’t do without being tempered with democracy, liberty and reason.

An employer and employee do not have the same perspective, value, approach of, or interesting in a business.

An employee wants a wage, and has no real commitment to the longevity of the business outside receive that wage.

An employer wants a productive worker who will accept the lowest amount of pay.

So no, there is not a “shared-interest”, other than making money and a living perhaps.

This is certainly the state of things now as compared to a while ago. When companies began to focus on shareholders and short term gains and outsourcing and so on, the broke ties with workers. Workers used to be tied to companies for much longer periods of time and were committed to their companies. Shit, I’ve had jobs where I really did not give a shit in the abstract, but in situ I gave my all and came up with creative solutions for long term company well being. It doesn’t take much to make quite strongly overlapping values. But that’s been trending away. In small companies you can still find strong overlap.

Urwrong is espousing pure marxism. Marx always forgot about the most important thing, namely the value of the produced object. The crux of the whole historical dynamic. The convenience that is being produced and valued for its convenience, which translates into the positive nature of the “bourgeoisie”, which is not the slave of the capital but the justification of the whole business: the middle class.

Any sane employer and employee is aware of the degree of value of what he produces and sells, and in this is the crux of all serious economy. People are often passionate about and at the least mildly interested in what they’re doing, not in the least because there are other people interested in them doing it. Value goes around like a girl on her birthday.
Marx applies strictly to forced labour type situations, the worst jobs of the 19th century, sweatshops and stuff here and now. Where people really don’t give a shit for what they produce. Even mcdonalds is above Marxism, because people who work there will most of the time be people who occasionally eat there and thats because they like the food enough to pay for it there and not elsewhere.
So Marx forgot about the real value of industry, namely what is being produced.

Of course this is a highly boring model, about as boring as the idea of sowing plants in the spring, waiting for very long and then harvesting it months later. Completely abject for any revolutionary, as it was for the Injuns apparently, but it works for some people like people I used to know but who are now like, fucked. Because there is no middle class anymore and only proletariat vs unleashed capital.

Whats being produced now is mainly materials for idiots to talk to other idiots and horsephalluses befriending little chickens on these materials.
Its no longer middle class utility and entertainment, this is pure savagery.

The world will have to become something much greater under our hands or it will fall.

Not really, the bottom-line is, Socialism is about Society and moral values. If your mind can only identify socialism with Economics, then you’re a Capitalist at heart, not a Socialist.

Corporatism of the 21st Century has gone much further than mere-Capitalism. Now McDonalds employees and customers identify with a brand-name, its icon (the golden arches), the colors (red and yellow), etc. It’s a sub-culture. You “belong” to a group (a mini-society) to consume Brand X instead of Brand Y. It’s an exponential increase of consumerism and commercialism. These are but a few reasons why Corporatism has spread and grown into Globalism, and why Communism can no longer compete.

It especially cannot compete when it is ‘Secularized’ and people ignore Morality completely. Is McDonalds good, when its obvious main effect on Western society has been Obesity and poorer health? And who is blame for this, Producer or Consumer? For the Tobacco industry, the Producer is to blame (sued for billions). For the alcohol industry, the Consumer is to blame (drunk-driving deaths). For the fast-food industry, nobody is to blame “obesity epidemic”, blame “obesity” (nameless, faceless, neither producer nor consumer is to blame).

Don’t you think this is covered by the labour theory of value?
Namely, specifically defining “the value of the produced object” in terms of the labour put into it?

The value of the produced object being based on labour is not only a central concept for Marx, but earlier classical liberals including Adam Smith - so by extension, would you say classical liberalism also forgot about the value of the produced object - or did they cover it elsewhere in a way that Marx did not?

Does being mildly interested in doing your job, or even being passionate about it cancel out or balance with the desire to get paid more? Would passionate employees commonly accept less pay, perhaps do the work for free if it meant they could hold onto their job? Even if offered the same or more for a different job? Perhaps in some exceptional cases. In those cases, would they actively push for less pay out of their passion - in line with the interests of the employer?

You have to push this passion extremely far to genuinely align employee and employer interests. As a rule and not just in exceptional cases they do not have the “same perspective, value, approach of, or interesting in a business”, just as Marx said, though perhaps better phrased.

Socialism is about centralized authority and nothing else, even though it is defined as “government control over means of production and the economy”. By granting control over the economy and means of production, government controls everything - the goal. And that is why they have gone to such extreme measures to promote climate change terrorism.

I believe that humanitarianism is merely their carrot on a stick. Those promoting socialism have made it clear by their real actions that they could not care less about you or anyone else. It is merely a global power grab for the suckers.

He is? That seems so unlikely, but I’ll let him handle that.

I think most people have tremendous internal motive to value what they do, and if it is producting something, rather than say a service, yes, they tend to value the product, if they can. If there is enough respect for them in the process and there is some way to convince themselves to value the product. I am sure even some anti-bellum slaves took pride in the crops or work well done tilling a field, even if they did hate their masters and so on. We like to take value in what we do. So if corporations have managed to make cubicle work utterly meaningless, they have had to be fairly creative in getting there. Because we want meaning and value in what we do and will bend our souls, often too much to find it or even ‘find’ it there.

Yes, there is a lot of garbage being made, solutions to problems that are not problems, improvements on things that are fine, and marketing processes that start with creating the market rather than informing people, hey, I have a solution to X that you’ve been yearning for, that actually allows you to be more of who you are directly or by freeing you up to be that.

Now we make el-scooters which people ride to the gym where they are paying to ride exercycles.

I agree. And the middle class is being eliminated.

This is precisely the idiocy.
The value of a piece of bread isn’t in the labour put into it, it is in its nutritional value. More precisely, the power to still any particular hunger. More precisely, it has value because it is valued. Which is why it is being baked in the first place.

Same with a car. The value is not in any labourers effort but in its power to transport, and to be precise, in its power to transport people who desire to be transported by this car.

It is perfectly astonishing that people can err this gravely about the nature of value. The sheer arrogance of the workers claim that he is the value of what he works at - this is perhaps the Stirnerian Ego which Marx introduced in Hegel to which Promethean referred.
In any case it is utterly insane.

In the same way the Marxist worker on a banana farm would claim that his efforts of picking the banana represents the value of the banana.

I wouldn’t believe that you actually fall for this idiocy if a billon people hadn’t fallen for it before you.
Naturally, such a radically distorted, childishly solipsistic view will keep any Marxist, any workers who think they are the value of what they have the privilege to work at, completely powerless to improve their conditions. And rightfully so! Fuck em, these arrogant knobs.

By Marxist logic, a really badly cooked meal on which some idiot spent ten days is worth more than a very fine meal prepared in half an hour. But it isn’t about the pains of the cook, it is about the enjoyment of the meal. Understanding that is the basis of culture, but Marx was just too barbaric for this most basic sanity.

Of course he lived in England, which means he probably never had an enjoyable meal, but that only goes so far as an excuse.

My family used to be the core of the Dutch Communist party, which was rather influential around the time I was born. Everyone had been to Moscow and Beijing and was on terms with Stalinists and Trotskists alike - it was never about morality with us, always about practice and the vitality of the party, the company of the workers, the brotherhood, essentially. I know what Communism is, but Socialism has always been the other camp - the social democrats, who are, as you say, moralists.

Very true. Now each Franchise workforce is modelled on the ground of “Sympathies” and thus taps from the same vat of passions as Socialism and other solidarity-politics.

As a capitalist, I would put responsibility with the individual, except in cases where there is demonstrable deliberate misleading and lying. A market is only truly free if solid information about all products is readily available.
If McDonalds were to claim that their food is healthy then there would be an issue. But as it is, people just opt for McDonalds because they have weighed their values and the outcome is that they prefer a burger over a weight loss.
We could debate whether or not people should be compulsive and driven by their desires, but that wouldn’t change the decisions these people make.

People make mistakes, constantly, and very serious ones, some of which Ive pointed out in my post to Silhouette above. They make decisions based on the most atrocious mishaps of logic, and live their lives and ruin other peoples lives based on these mistakes. That tendency of ambitious and educated people to completely disregard the most vital logic is at the top of my to-resolve list - all of this has to do with understanding value.

beforethelight.forumotion.com/t1 … e-ontology

Well demand, and supply right?
The more difficult it is to do something, the more you’re going to have to pay workers to do it and the rarer it’s going to be, the more you’re going to have to charge consumers.
It’s both.