Social Libertarianism

[Silhouette]

Capitalism can easily function under limits that prevent monopolies and thus is very compatible with (almost requiring) the distribution of authority.

This seems curious as I would gather that all Social Democrats would entirely agree with you. Read up on "Social Democracy" if you haven't already.

Socialism IS a monopoly, forbidding distribution of authority.

Since you mention Marxist theory you will probably be aware that Socialism is indeed a monopoly, but of the working class over the state military. It is then theorised that in the absense of capitalist practices, that the majority of the populace who are working class would use their seized military force against (the opposite of seeking pure Capitalism as it seems you were saying), the need to use such force would dissolve and (famously) "the state would wither away" because we'd all realise we're better off without capitalist practices. As such, Socialism is theorised to give way to Communism, which according to Marxist theory is stateless and authority is distributed equally amongst everyone in a classless society (classless because there is now "only one class" by everyone's choice), who function in cooperative, self-governing communes.

Now, whether you agree or not with such projections, you will note that the intention is to distribute authority - which is something of which I believe you were in favour, yes? The intention of Social Democrats who are colloquially mis-identified as Socialists is to limit Capitalism, just the same as you.

I see time and again common ground in the goals of people interested in socio-economic reform, or even revolution - the only real differences lie in how to get there.

As such, I would say it's fruitless to call Socialists and/or Communists categorically against the distribution of authority. Sure, there are probably plenty who want State control of authority - perhaps aware or unaware that this means their own authority, but this is why blanket statements about Socialism are vulgar.

you would hope that anti-trust laws would prevent huge corporations from attaining the monopolies and oligopolies that reign supreme today.

If you can't regulate even that, you certainly cannot prevent a socialist regime from becoming corrupt.

No doubt true.

The greater mystery is how it's possible to make things better or worse at all.

That is not as hard as you might think. The first step is easy. You start small and stop trying to tell the whole world what to do.

Hmm. Considering my point that not telling the whole world what to do lets those with capital gain more capital more easily, gaining power geometrically, landing us in this centralised mess in the first place, I'm not sure the solutions to these complex economic problems are as easy as you're making out. The way some people talk about economic solutions makes it a wonder how nobody accidentally achieved utopia already.

[obsrvr524]

Capitalism can easily function under limits that prevent monopolies and thus is very compatible with (almost requiring) the distribution of authority.

This seems curious as I would gather that all Social Democrats would entirely agree with you. Read up on "Social Democracy" if you haven't already.

Who decides what is socially just in the supreme SJW State?

[Silhouette]

Who decides what is socially just in the supreme SJW State?

It's plain to see that any supreme SJW State would legally consist, at best, of kangaroo courts.

I'm guessing your point is to equate all Social Democrats with SJW Progressivism.

Having already seen this error a few days ago, I responded with this post at the top of the second page.

[obsrvr524]

your point is to equate all Social Democrats with SJW Progressivism.

Having already seen this error a few days ago, I responded with this post at the top of the second page.

Since you think there is a distinction, apply the same question.

In your Social Democratic State, who decides what is just?

[Silhouette]

In your Social Democratic State, who decides what is just?

Um... my Social Democratic State?

By definition it wouldn't belong to anyone in particular...

To answer your question: the courts, lawyers, same as what we have now... which is Social Democracy. Don't act like it's some new-fangled, way-out-there idea. It's what The West has.

[obsrvr524]

If it is the same as now, what are you quibbling about?

By definition it wouldn't belong to anyone in particular...

And that is what i meant by liking and looking for something to create argument rather than looking and liking things to create agreement. -- "Let's all find some flimsy excuse to hate each other."

[Ecmandu]

I have to tell you folks, I am a direct democracy person. I believe in 'mob rule'. A term coined by elites to scare us

[Silhouette]

By definition it wouldn't belong to anyone in particular...

And that is what i meant by liking and looking for something to create argument rather than looking and liking things to create agreement. -- "Let's all find some flimsy excuse to hate each other."

This is kinda ironic.
Here you are supporting what we already have, but still hating on parties and their doctrines that support it.
I'm the one pointing out that everyone fighting has far more in common than they seem to realise and not taking sides.
It's common for people to accuse others of their own faults...

I have to tell you folks, I am a direct democracy person. I believe in 'mob rule'. A term coined by elites to scare us

I bet you don't class yourself as a communist, but this is perfectly compatible with it according to the theory.

There's probably tons of people who agree with you who got scared off by the term because authoritarian dictators have called their autocratic totalitarian disasters "Communism" to get political support for their regime while it was still a popular term, even though what they were doing was the literal opposite of what Communism is. The US jumped at the chance to call it Communism too, to put everyone off even looking into its actual ideas and finding they were actually appealing and nothing like what they were being associated with.

Everywhere people are accusing Capitalism of turning Communist, when it's just Capitalism being Capitalism, and actual Communism is what everyone's unknowingly supporting to solve it.

It's not accepted that Capitalism can be Capitalism when it grows out of the scope of Classical Liberalism, but simply because aquiring capital makes it easier to acquire more capital, it runs away with itself and tends towards inequality such that power is centralised in the hands of very few, and spreading it around the globe as much as possible only speeds this up. This is the root of what people are calling Globalist and attributing to conspiracy, but it's just Capitalism - the only political component is to narrate it all as Communist, and count on the reliable ignorance of the electorate to not look up the fact that actual Communism is the solution - not the enemy.

[Ecmandu]

It's sad that numerous indinigous tribes, that actually are communist, are disparaged by the counter intelligence that you describe silhouette... talk about fake news!!

[Silhouette]

It's sad that numerous indinigous tribes, that actually are communist, are disparaged by the counter intelligence that you describe silhouette... talk about fake news!!

See, nobody knows what the communist literature actually says...
And yet everyone feels so comfortable throwing around the terminology...

Communism is post-Capitalist. Tribes are pre-Feudalist - basically at the opposite end of the Historical Materialism timeline.

[Ecmandu]

It's sad that numerous indinigous tribes, that actually are communist, are disparaged by the counter intelligence that you describe silhouette... talk about fake news!!

See, nobody knows what the communist literature actually says...
And yet everyone feels so comfortable throwing around the terminology...

Communism is post-Capitalist. Tribes are pre-Feudalist - basically at the opposite end of the Historical Materialism timeline.

I think you're taking those demarcations too far.

Communism is literally "communal decision making", which perfectly describes many (not all) indigenous tribes.

[Urwrongx1000]

Socialism is about economics,

Here is my first point-of-contention.

To me, Socialism is about Society, and how people interact and relate with each-other. Socialists, idealistically, want Society to form better and stronger bonds with one-another. So, to me, this means that Socialism is about Morality, not Economics. Economics is anti-Social. Usually, one person or group, is making money and profit, and the detriment, or to the detriment, of others. When one group profits off-of others; this is Anti-social behavior.

This is also a big reason why World War II happened. German Nationalists were sick and tired of 'Others' profiting from the German country's hard-work.

about narrowing but not necessarily eliminating the gap between rich and poor, which can be accomplished with (state socialism) or without government intervention (market socialism), whereas progressivism is about identity politics, about racism, religionism, sexism and so on against whites, Christians, men and so forth, as well as globalism, open borders, gun control, compulsory education, healthcare and vaccinations.

I wouldn't say you're a Socialist then...you're just Anti-Capitalist or Egalitarian. A Socialist society could have disparities between rich and poor, if that disparity were wrought through merit and accumulation of resources (Inheritance).

While I'm in favor of free (if it's not free or at least cheap, it's not socialism, it's corporatism) public education and healthcare, I think it should be a state/provincial matter, not a federal one, and it should be voluntary, not obligatory.
While free public education, healthcare and vaccines should be available, you shouldn't have to publicly educate or vaccinate your kids or yourself, you should be able to homeschool them, and private education and healthcare should also be available.
I would also like to see a shift towards more holistic public healthcare and education.

Yes, very Libertarian....

Socialism and corporatism aren't the same thing either.
Corporatism is about widening the gap between rich and poor.
For me, all taxes on the working and middle classes is corporatism.
All taxes on and unnecessary regulations of small businesses is corporatism.
All megacorporate welfare, bailouts, tax breaks and loopholes is corporatism.

I disagree.

Taxation is needed (on the middle-class) to fund the Military. Other than that, I might agree with you.

I describe myself as a social libertarian, I'm a socialist on economic issues but a libertarian on social issues not a progressive.
While there should be more socialism, we need to balance it with capitalism, not micromanage the economy.
All megacorps need to be nationalized and unionized or heavily taxed and regulated to ensure employees are paid fairly and the health and safety of employees and consumers.
However, small businesses should be tax exempt and minimally regulated.
There should only be welfare for small businesses, not big.

In the western world, the system we have today could best be characterized as progressive fascism, because like fascists the deep state are corporatists, imperialists, plutocrats and against privacy, due process and so called recreational drugs.

Again, it looks to me like you are simply Anti-Capitalist and Anti-Corporatist, not necessarily "Socialist".

I think you might have the wrong idea bout Socialism, for better or worse.

[Urwrongx1000]

Socialism and "Progressivism" are slightly different ideals.

Progressivism is Socialism "of the 21st Century". Progressivists believe in Egalitarian moral-values, that, homosexuals should be "married" and races should mix, for a variety of reasons. Progressivism is a huge slice and component of 'Modernism', if not the main core of it. Progressivists believe that "evil-whitey" is to blame for everything, and the world can only "move forward" with non-white, non-male leadership. However, Progressivists never explain the disparity of "Leadership". When challenged, it's always a backpedal into a bad argument, that "we've always been oppressed", as a means to explain the lack of Leadership from women and minorities. So, this begs-the-question, why are white-males still the De Facto 'leaders' of, arguably, all important matters in life???

Socialism is Morality. How should people interact and relate with each-other? Should a Society be Homogeneous (genetically close) or Heterogeneous (genetically distant)? Many "Socialists" are Liberal-hypocrites. They say one thing, but do another. Or they do one thing, but think another. This fallacious thinking appears as, "Do as I say, not as I do". So Progressivists and Socialists are generally untrustworthy. To proclaim Social-values, and actually follow them, is usually the realm of Religion. Religion preaches that your actions and words must coincide. So Socialists are similar to Judæo-Christians, except, Socialists don't necessarily follow the 'Rules' they wish they could impose onto anybody-else.

[Silhouette]

I think you're taking those demarcations too far.

Communism is literally "communal decision making", which perfectly describes many (not all) indigenous tribes.

Sure you can ignore the context entirely and focus only on the derivation of the name to sum up an entire economic model with extensive literature about it.

I mean Communism has plenty in common with Capitalism too, so should we just say that they're the same thing too?

This way you can reduce all Communists to desiring a single small subsistence commune and suggest they go join a small-holding and leave everyone else to it - like so many people do.

Capitalism works best post-Feudalism, and is great for getting the poor out of poverty and kick-starting a technological age, but it becomes toxic after this is achieved - the aim isn't then to regress all the way back to the start, it's to devolve power yet one more step: having been passed all the way down from the autocracy of tribalism, through feudal lords, through capitalists, to the working class so everyone can actually enjoy the fruits of previous steps in the Historical Materialism chain.

Direct Democracy finally becomes possible... but u wouldn't call urself a communist even though that's what you're after, yes? The same as countless others who simply don't know...

Every thread on this subject is the same, nobody's read up on the subject, but they're all so eager to tie in Communism either with its opposite: State Totalitarianism, Social Democracy (which is what we already have), Progressivism (individual communes could stoop to that if they wanted, but couldn't force it on others because there's no centralised power, or prevent anyone from moving to another commune if they didn't like it), or Socialism (which is simply a transition from Capitalism to Communism according to Lenin).

The insistence to misunderstand and spread misunderstanding of the solution, which pretty much everyone is after anyway, is the definition of stupidity.

[Gloominary]

We all know this, but it's worth mentioning...

The rich steal from the poor through governmental corporate welfare.

Yeah, that just needs to stop. Like, right now.

Right, increasingly we live in an oligopoly, not a free and/or social market.
In the last several decades the rich have gotten richer and poor poorer, despite largely uninterrupted economic growth and technological advancement.
Sure, we all have flashy phones and tablets now, but in terms of necessities like food and housing, the standard of living has declined for working/middle class people.
Price inflation has outpaced wage inflation.

It's not enough to merely prevent future theft.
We need to take our wealth and power back from these megacorps.
It's ludicrous to permit one or a handful of men to fully own and wield a megacorp with a revenue bigger than the revenues of some countries, with millions of people dependent on it for goods, services and a livelihood.
It stifles and undermines democracy and competition.
It's ludicrous that it takes working/middle class couples both working full time to support a small household.

If corporate and technological sophistication just means less money for necessities but more consumerism and flashy tech, at least for the rich, then what's the point?
Might as well turn the clock back a century or two.
At least then we won't need to consume all this crap, much of it bad for the environment as well as our health.

[Gloominary]

I have to tell you folks, I am a direct democracy person. I believe in 'mob rule'. A term coined by elites to scare us

I am too.
That being said, we still need to elect admins to administer it.
While I think in time we'll be able to supplant the legislative branch with direct democracy, we may still need an executive branch to make quick decisions and give executive orders, and a judicial branch to determine what's constitutional.
Not sure, haven't looked into it enough yet.
But if so, of course the people should be able to directly challenge executive orders after the executive branch has made them, and make direct amendments to the constitution.
Anyway it's an interesting topic, direct democracy would probably lead to a freer and fairer market and society.

[Gloominary]

A couple other things I disagree with many other social democrats and democratic socialists about besides globalism, progressivism and what I see as the overregulation of small businesses, is I believe in arming citizens and militias.
I want to reduce the wealth gap between the people, small businesses and big business, but also the power gap between the people, local governments and big government.
I'm for giving provinces/states more rights.

In my view, you can't really have a functional democracy when (nearly) most of the wealth and power are in the hands of big business and government.
I'm skeptical of big business and government, but in favor of using either big or local governments to go after big business.
The people should hold the overwhelming majority of both the wealth, and power.

Lastly, I'm in favor of a more stable technological economy.
If we're to have any growth at all, it should be slow and sustainable.
I'm against the transnaturalists who want to overturn nature overnight, which could result in a mass extinction event.
I'm against the transhumanists who want to commit self-extinction by transforming ourselves beyond recognition.
To me if anything technology should aid us in preserving what we are, and we can't do that by doing away with nature altogether.

[Gloominary]

Really many or most scientists aren't naturalists, they're transnaturalists, they have no respect for nature.

[Gloominary]

Nationalism to me means just putting citizens first ahead of foreigners, it doesn't mean discriminating against minorities.
It's not our job to fix the world's problems, we got enough of our own.

I believe in protecting ourselves and closest allies from an overt attack, but that's it, no pre-emptive strikes, no war on or for drugs and terror.
if some states are really, truly sponsoring terror out there, and it's not just false intelligence, we'll deal with it just by sanctioning and isolating them.

A lot of foreign aid is just used to manipulate the 3rd world and unnecessarily expand the size of government.
Much of our foreign aid goes to Israel, and I don't consider it a (close) ally.
Geographically it's far away.
Ask not what we can do for Israel, but what Israel can do for us.
Israel, and its expansionist, racist government, does nothing but encourage our countries to commit suicide and stoke tensions between us and Muslims.

I'm anti-immigration, but if people come here, they should speak our language, know and respect our customs and have something to contribute.
They should be capable of creating jobs, not just competing for them.

[Gloominary]

I'm not a vegan or vegetarian, but I'm against animal cruelty and hunting endangered species.

I'm in favor of doing more to protect oceans and national parks, but skeptical of manmade climate change or it being a problem and against austerity measures.

[Gloominary]

Communism is literally "communal decision making", which perfectly describes many (not all) indigenous tribes.

Communism has been defined somewhat differently by different schools of thought, which's not to say the word is meaningless, because all these definitions have something in common, like shared ownership, but which's is to say no single school has a monopoly on it.
We needn't be bound by Marxist definitions.

For me, communism, like socialism and corporatism is strictly about ownership or distribution of property, not life and liberty.
Communism is about the people (they could be any people, a small tribe of dozens of animists, a large tribe of millions of atheists) sharing ownership of (virtually) all property, by contrast socialism is shared ownership of (virtually) all commerce and corporatism is say a small % of people owning (virtually) all property or commerce.
Capitalism is private property, then there's state property.
Some anarchoindividualists promote private possession (not to be conflated with private property) and Stirnerite egoists no property (might makes right).
Theoretically you can have private or state communism, socialism and corporatism.

There are all kinds of ways of trying to achieve these economic forms, and ideas about what kind of societies they could or should accompany.
There are also gradations between them.
Communism can work well for families and small tribes, altho small tribes tend to be polygamous, infight and outfight over women rather than stuff.

Can democratic or anarcho-communism work for a big tribe like ours?
I wouldn't bet on it.

[promethean75]

Some anarchoindividualists promote private possession (not to be conflated with private property) and Stirnerite egoists no property (might makes right).

Yup and stirner's egoism - which was a direct response to the dominant hegelian thought at the time - was viewed as a dangerous prototype philosophy that would usher in capitalism. Marx recognized that hegel's idealism could not contend with stirner's scathing criticism, and it's said somewhere (can't remember where), that this contributed to marx's drive to split from hegel and develop a purely materialistic philosophy. You might say that stirner got the ball rolling back then. The young hegelians came to see him as the great dragon that had to he slayed...

After reading The Ego, Engels wrote to Marx explicitly stating his opinion, one which would powerfully colour Stirner’s legacy: We must not simply cast it [The Ego] aside, but rather use it as the perfect expression of the present-day folly, and, while inverting it, continue to build on it. Marx responded by burying himself in The Ego, and constructing his reply in The German Ideology. For Marx and Engels, coming to terms with The Ego was a deeply fundamental moment in the development of Communist theory.

[barbarianhorde]

I'm not a vegan or vegetarian, but I'm against animal cruelty and hunting endangered species.

I'm in favor of doing more to protect oceans and national parks, but skeptical of manmade climate change or it being a problem and against austerity measures.

Austerity measures will only enhance animal cruelty in big crowded meat factories.

After reading The Ego, Engels wrote to Marx explicitly stating his opinion, one which would powerfully colour Stirner’s legacy: We must not simply cast it [The Ego] aside, but rather use it as the perfect expression of the present-day folly, and, while inverting it, continue to build on it. Marx responded by burying himself in The Ego, and constructing his reply in The German Ideology. For Marx and Engels, coming to terms with The Ego was a deeply fundamental moment in the development of Communist theory.

Very interesting!
Supremely interesting in fact.

Where can this be read?

Thats then basically the unresolved tension in our world, the West. The invisible yet explicit Ego of the Left.

[barbarianhorde]

So then the Ego became the Lacanian Real vis a vis the leftist economy of pleasure.

[promethean75]

quote was taken from here: https://www.unionofegoists.com/authors/ ... -and-marx/

essentially marx was so moved by stirner's devastating attack on 'philosophy' that he was simultaneously intrigued and terrified. so he did what any innovative thinker would do; dismantle it before it turned the whole world into a shit-storm, and then put it back together for use against the bourgeois concepts of history that rested so firmly on the philosophical nonsense that supplanted it. so stirner was good and bad; good in demolishing the philosophical idealism/rationalism that elevated the ruling classes over the productive classes, bad in doing such a fantastic job at it, that the almost impossible task of re-centering egoism in favor of history and the proletariat - rather than descending into nihilism - would require a sustained attack on philosophy through the marxist materialists. a culmination of this movement arrives in positivism, wittgenstein, and the 'ordinary language' philosophers.

regarding the lacan question, yeah, sorta. what we have today are not spontaneous philosophical questions that arise from nowhere in the heads of philosophers. language is literally like a logocentric superstructure that designs and contains the anatomy of all possible questions... so that today, when doing philosophy, one is absentmindedly participating in an ideology that involves all kinds of presuppositions that are taken for granted. a great example would be nationalistic philosophies that are grounded in social darwinism. this is neither a science or a philosophy, but rather a series of hackneyed attitudes held by conservatives. i think it was lacan who said 'ideology; they don't know it, but they are doing it.' what this might mean here is that such pseudo-philosophy has become so entrenched in modern thinking that in order to dispel its mythology, you'd have to demolish centuries of thought.

all this only has currency in marxist terms; that the ideas of each epoche are established by the ruling classes. ergo, capitalism mobilizes a vast series of pseudo-philosophical truisms in its attempt to rationalize and defend itself. the presuppositions of philosophies upholding this ideology were both destroyed and preserved by stirner. by reducing all institutions down to 'spooks', he set the ego free... but in doing so he opened the door for radical, amoral individualism... precisely the kind we see at the foundation of western capitalist theory.