you have a slanderous agenda against Publiousinfinitu.....and a "big brother" agenda against me
How so?
Golly... IF this screed in ANY WAY, ON ANY LEVEL contested one word of my position it MIGHT register as a valid point. Sadly... it does not.
There is NO SUCH THING as "libertarian-socialism"... it is a MYTH; it CANNOT EXIST IN NATURE; no more than HOT-COLD, HARD-SOFT or BLACK-WHITE...
Your idiocy is utterly pathetic. On the contrary, there is no such thing as "libertarian capitalism." Liberty cannot be maximized by capitalism, which necessitates hierarchical organizations and establishments.
What I know of socialism is the trail of disaster that it has brought every culture in which it has been lent credence... Socialism has resulted in the MURDER of 150 MILLION people... The enslavement many times that and has cost the planet trillions in lost production.
That is false. The societies you refer to are state capitalist ones, not socialist ones. Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production. Because control of the means of production was consolidated in the hands of elites such as party and Politburo officials, as well as the Central Committee, in the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union was a state capitalist nation rather than a socialist one. The state ruling class in the Soviet Union formed the equivalent of the corporate ruling class in the United States. Both are brutally anti-democratic systems of governance.
The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky
Learn a thing or two before you run your mouth, kid.
Again... Socialism is an invalid notion... thus there can be no legitimacy where such exists.
That is false. More than that, you are delusional when you blather on about the "free markets" promoted in a capitalist economy. Rapidly growing market economies have originally been characterized by protectionism in the case of infant industries, a painfully obvious fact to everyone except you.
It's not a theory sis... a function of human nature as well as a historical fact; it is wholly inevitable where a majority of a given culture loses sufficient masculinity to concede to the foolish whimsy that is socialism. Socialism is little more than the 'have your cake and eat it too...' fantasy of the addle mind; the wish of the morally vacant and the neÂ’er-do-wells which chronically reside on the bottom rung of every culture.
I sense some reversion to your inaccurate belief that socialism necessitates the abandonment of wage differentiations according to skill differences in this above statement. This is false, and as a socialist economy can retain a market while also preserving the collective ownership of the means of production, it is an oversimplification of socialist economics.
The assertion also ignores the blatantly obvious fact that socialist economies have promoted the general welfare to a commendable degree in the past, particularly in the libertarian socialist collectives of the Spanish Revolution.
ROFL... Socialists need a violent revolution because there is no means to accomplish their goals otherwise. Socialism is intellectually unsound, logically invalid and as such cannot compete in the arena of ideas... let alone the realm of reality. Violent revolution simply seeks to silence the opposition, thus providing the means for the socialists to operate absent viable cultural competition.
Perhaps the strongest indication of socialism's intellectual soundness is the necessity for capitalist demagogues to obfuscate its nature, as you have done here. You have done nothing whatsoever to rebut socialistic tenets, as you inaccurately believe that a command economy is a fundamental tenet of socialism, as characterized by your annoyingly persistent belief that the Soviet Union is an example of a socialist country.
Hey... a desperate appeal to popularity; the cornerstone of socialism; which stands in example, as evidence that socialism is logically invalid.
Nothing of the sort. The purpose of referencing that fact was to rebut your inaccurate assertion that all forms of socialism were necessarily equivalent to communism. I was illustrating that this was obviously untrue in the cases of market socialism, mutualism, and collectivism.
Libertarianism is rooted in LIBERTY... from the Latin root liber... (look it up...) Libertarianism stands upon NOTHING EXCEPT FREEDOM! Capitalism is nothing more than the free exchange of goods and services to the mutual benefit of both parties... It is the purest essence of Libertarianism, which in effect translates to 'you do your thing, I'll do mine, because when we do it, we get along fine...' Libertarianism cannot exists ABSENT CAPITALISM, PERIOD. There cannot be one, without the other, they are synonymous concepts. Such as Imbecile and YOU.
This of course sets aside the sea of irrelevant minutia you need to introduce to spin this endless sophistry.
Perhaps it is you who should look these things up...libertarianism was a term initially devised to circumvent anti-anarchist "villainous laws" promoted to suppress anarchist (libertarian socialist) organizations like the International Workingmens' Association in France. The conception of libertarianism that you possess is due to the classical liberals' usurpation of the term. This process occurred from the 1930's onward, due to the establishment of Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian school of economics.
But socialists held the term far earlier than these classical liberals did. You would do well to note the fact that French anarcho-communist Sébastien Faure began publishing his newspaper,
The Libertarian, in 1895, almost 40 years prior to the classical liberal trend.
Again a feeble ad populum farce... 'most people feel... this or that' Who cares? If most people felt that smashing one's testicles with a hammer brought enlightenment, it would NOT change the fact that the enlightenment which such brought was limited to the certain knowledge that it is highly inadvisable to smash one's testicles with a hammer...
Except that this above nonsense is utter idiocy with no semblance of plausibility. Your intent on ignoring the will of consensus of a population is unjustly anti-democratic.
LOL... the list of things you don't see is endless. You can't even get your head around the simple, immutable fact that Libertarianism is WHOLLY ANTITHETICAL TO SOCIALISM.
Here's the difference... Libertarians are found on cattle ranches, sail boats and those places where they're free to pursue the fulfillment of their lives... where they can be left alone to live and let live. Socialists are more typically found in inner cities, busying themselves with interfering in the lives of as many people as possible and when they DO decide to 'get away from it all', they end up in far away places such as "Jones Town" ...
Those are not legitimate varieties of libertarians, just as "anarcho"-capitalists are not legitimate anarchists. Because of their support for capitalism and the imposition of hierarchy that it necessitates, their activism is
opposed to the maximization of liberty, as hierarchy necessarily stands opposed to the maximization of liberty.
That is what the aforementioned analogy was intended to illustrate:
"Suppose a man were to directly tackle and assault you and rip your valuables out of your pockets. We would honestly call this robbery. But suppose that instead of this direct assault, a man were to point a gun at you and demand that you hand over your valuables. We would honestly call this robbery also. The first case was one of direct brutality, but in the second case, you technically "consented" to hand over your valuables. You had no viable alternative, because your alternative was to be shot, at which point you would be injured or dead. The first example is analagous to state tyranny: brutal and effective. The second example is analagous to capitalist tyranny: You technically "consent" to subordinate yourself to an employer and work for a wage, but as with the analogy, you have no viable alternative."
Oh... OK, don't like Stalin, who murdered 25 million people? How about Mao, who murdered 75 million? Or the Il family of North Korea, with a tally still be rung up which is estimated to be in the tens of millions and climbing... Castro... Che Guevara? How about Pol Pot?
The simple fact is that NONE of these communists will suffice as suitable examples of non-perverted communists... because to submit THESE ACTUAL COMMUNISTS as examples OF COMMUNISM undermines the Left-think myth that Communism is something besides Cultural DEATH!
Stalin, Mao, and Castro are not communists. Stalin and Mao are also not socialists, but state capitalists. Castro is an authoritarian socialist not far from being a state capitalist himself. All the "communist" leaders that you cite are state capitalists in that
they are the rulers of the respective societies that they govern, not the public, and not through democracy.
It is for this purpose that all
legitimate socialists and communists condemn the anti-democratic brutality of the Soviet Union and all states that imitate it, as Kropotkin did in his letter to Lenin.
Peter Kropotkin said:
Vladimir Ilyich, your concrete actions are completely unworthy of the ideas you pretend to hold. Is it possible that you do not know what a hostage really is — a man imprisoned not because of a crime he has committed, but only because it suits his enemies to exert blackmail on his companions? ... If you admit such methods, one can foresee that one day you will use torture, as was done in the Middle Ages. I hope you will not answer me that Power is for political men a professional duty, and that any attack against that power must be considered as a threat against which one must guard oneself at any price. This opinion is no longer held even by kings... Are you so blinded, so much a prisoner of your own authoritarian ideas, that you do not realise that being at the head of European Communism, you have no right to soil the ideas which you defend by shameful methods ... What future lies in store for Communism when one of its most important defenders tramples in this way every honest feeling?
You are unaware of this, just as you are unaware of the tenets of political economy as a whole.
ROFL... here's the thing sis... I and the market determine my wage and neither you nor the organized, non-governmental society of anarchist morons have a right to dictate what should be the value of the product of my labor...
That socialism provides for 'differentiations' does not bestow validity upon the concept... the fact remains that you've no right to establish my wages unless and until I freely consent to such a decision; and wherein I am free to make that decision without fear of reprisal by your 'organized society.'
You are an utter fool. Libertarian socialist collectives are based on voluntary association. By all means, leave, stay, join, depart, determine whatever sort of wage you want. Various forms of socialism retain a market system and merely collectivize the means of production, a mechanism that you are clearly unaware of due to your ignorance of political economy.
Wages are not currently determined by democratic consensus in a capitalist economy. Workers do not have the right to determine their salaries or working conditions; they are ruled over by capitalist masters, and whether this manifests itself as a minor irritation or utter tyranny, it is an unjust imposition of hierarchy.
ROFLMNAO... Oh Sure... Yes, the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics, was actually a 'State Capitalist'... because 'everyone knows' that those Communists didn't know as much about Communism as these western useful idiots...
This has already been explained to you. I wonder if you would accept the Soviet Union's self-description so uncritically when it came to the Soviet-controlled German "Democratic" Republic. The Soviet leaders profited by claiming to be socialist in an attempt to convince their citizenry
If you love it so much go marry china or cuba
The words of an individual unfamiliar with socialistic tenets, especially evidenced by your ignorance of political economy.
@ Agnapostate:
I doubt that we will ever see Anarchism as a state system. My reasoning is the following:
While a non hierarchical organisation may have significant advatadges for the individual, it is also limited by what it can achieve. I doubt that a syndicate will build a space shipt for example. The most dominantly hierarchical entitiys are usually the militaries. This propably has evolutionary reasons, non hierarchical militarys got defeated by hierarchical ones. I believe that an anarchist society would be conquered and dominated by more hierachically organized neighbours. Another issue would be weapons of mass destruction. Lets assume that France turns into an Anarchosyndicalistic State (nice oxymoron I know), who is going to control the nukes? You could assume that Frances non Anarchical neighbours (and I would venture to say the Anarchical ones too) would be very concerned about that.
Well, firstly, it is necessary to clarify that any form of non-hierarchical or anarchist society would not involve a state. That being said, there is no reason that an anarchist society could not raise an army or a militia organized with anarchist principles. Anarchist militias scored impressive victories during the Spanish Civil War, the most famous among them being the
Durruti Column. Anarchist armies have also been organized on even larger scales. Nestor Makhno's
Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine defended the anarchist Free Territory of Ukraine for a time, bolstering their numbers from defections from the Soviet Red Army, and scoring impressive victories against the White Army in Ukraine under the command of Lieutenant General Anton Ivanovich Denikin.
Hence, it is possible to organize anarchist armies through direct democratic principles. All soldiers would meet in assemblies to determine army policies, and officers would be elected by these assemblies as a whole. They could not determine army policy independently of the assemblies, but could only administer it. They would be instantly recallable in the case of abuse of their position. Such an army could also be a militarily viable one, as evidenced by the Spanish militias and the aforementioned Makhnovists.
Hey that's a great point! And this, a result of greater and greater or should we say a progressive increase in government power towards the goal to 'control' what would otherwise BE a 'free market.'
Hmmm...
Now, I wonder... what ideology lead the US into this progressive government control of the US economy, through an endless litany of regulation, taxes and other forms of economic control and direct manipulation of the market, which has lead to the marketbeing something vastly less than FREE?
You are utterly unfamiliar with socialism, and have a bullheaded and ignorant idea of all forms of socialism and communism being equivalent to each other, and of that in turn being represented by the Soviet Union.
These ideas are both false. As for the former, various forms of socialism retain differentiations in wages according to differentiations in skill level, as I have explained to you, which is not a communist tenet. Your primitive definition of "socialism" includes only communism and does not address the realities of market socialism, mutualism, and collectivism.
As for the latter, I have already explained why socialism is not equivalent to state capitalism, and why socialism was not practiced in the Soviet Union, but existed in such places as the anarchist collectives that existed during the Spanish Civil War, in the Free Territory of Ukraine, in the Paris Commune, in the Italian factory workers' uprising, in the EZLN uprising, etc.
You know nothing of this, and know nothing even of the fundamental tenets of political economy.
Bravo 
FYI: Ad populum reasoning is fallacious, logically invalid reasoning; thus it is not acceptable as sound, viable reasoning; meaning you're an idiot who's tryin' to push fallacious prattle as sound reasoning.
