On Libertarian Socialism

[r/books No.12316868]

Wait--how does the abolishment of private property result in true individualism? You'd think owning your own home or your own farm as a farmer is the mark of individualism. Plus private ownership encourages harder, more committed working, because people take better care with their own things.

[Anonymous No.12316875]

>>12316868
Actually, John Mackey (the father of the alt-right and proud owner of the solarpunk ideology) talks about social libertarianism in his new book called "Conscious Capitalism" I highly recommend you read it & meme it.

[Anonymous No.12316877]

>>12316868
can't you just ask /pol/ and leave us alone

[Anonymous No.12316879]

>Libertarian Socialism

[Anonymous No.12316882]

>>12316868
I think when they refer to true individualism, its mostly in regards to an existential dream. While beautiful, Based John Mackey has converted me to the alt-right.

[Anonymous No.12316917]

Its rooted in an evaluation of who own's the means of production and those industries that produces the essentials for an individuals current existence
So an individual has more power and sovereignty in a democratic environment of free association that should be applied to his work place and the way a society's means of production exist
Basically capitalism concentrates power in the hands of a few which is detrimental to human rights and freedom
All that being said Libertarian Socialism just comes across as far too of a meme label in a today's discussion, and almost anybody who claims to be one is just looking for attention.

[Anonymous No.12316954]

>>12316868
The link between ownership and individuality is a fundamentally capitalist construct, aimed at promoting consumerism: your individuality can (supposedly) only be asserted through the specific combination of goods you buy/have bought. By cutting this link, we can evolve towards a real individualism.

[r/books No.12316990]

>>12316954
You could privately own property without purchasing it. If you were to allocate a portion to persons, for example, like the U.S.'s promised forty acres granted to freed slaves. Would you say these freed slaves were participating in consumerism?

[Anonymous No.12317015]

>>12316954
The more "goods" (capital) you have, the more "individuality" (power) you can express. A billionaire captain of industry is an individual -- his slaves are the multitude.

[Anonymous No.12317016]

how does the ownership of your own dwelling and capital become accessible to the poor in individualist capitalism

[Anonymous No.12317020]

>>12316954
No even a lot of socialist strands of thought accept ownership in the immediate sense
(ie I own this laptop because I am using it for myself to my own benefit along with others and lending it to someone else serves no immediate purpose if I find utility in it.)

[Anonymous No.12317027]

>>12317015
but the billionaire is slave to his capital

[Anonymous No.12317029]

>>12317016
Work harder lol

[Anonymous No.12317032]

>>12317016
We have entire industries devoted for just that purpose

[Anonymous No.12317035]

>>12317027
Often the billionaire donates his wealth to charity as well... Which is oftentimes where he got the inspiration to become wealthy in the first place.

[Anonymous No.12317039]

>>12317035
Elaborate on the inspiration bit

[Anonymous No.12317041]

>>12316868
>Plus private ownership encourages harder, more committed working, because people take better care with their own things.
>their own things
Joke's on you, vast majority of people works for someone else.

[Anonymous No.12317049]

>>12316868
did people take better care of their slaves because it was their property?

[Anonymous No.12317054]

>>12317039
God is like higher purpose. If you tap into your higher purpose, you will be driven to do more good in the world from a spiritual & intuitive level.

>See John Mackey's Conscious Capitalism, the father of the neo-alt-right.

[Anonymous No.12317055]

You still own things under socialism

[r/books No.12317099]

>>12317049
Yes, generally the owner would treat a slave better than someone who didn't own them. Isn't this psychological phenomena documented?
>>12317055
Most of the major theories are without private property but have personal property (moveable property, like clothing). But to me there's not much of a leap from personal property to private property.

[Anonymous No.12317104]

>>12317054
So are you saying the person's wealth was enabled by god because of his drive to give?

[Anonymous No.12317147]

>>12317041
yeah but we're taking about actual capitalism not the crony capitalism of the socialist left

[Anonymous No.12317152]

>>12317147
>muh not real capitalism
lmaoing my arse off

[Anonymous No.12317153]

>>12317104
I suppose you could say that.

[Anonymous No.12317155]

>>12317099
the distinction between personal and private property is mostly economic, private property is something you make money off of, personal property is something you use

[Anonymous No.12317164]

>>12317147
>"actual capitalism" has never been tried!

[Anonymous No.12317218]

>>12316868
>your own farm as a farmer
not sustainable under capitalism. you just get swallowed up by a corporation. the institution of the family farm used to be the backbone of us society, now it's essentially gone.

[Anonymous No.12317319]

>>12316868
What's so striking about Oscar Wilde's writing in The Soul of Man under Socialism is that the whole text permeates with pure egotistical nonsense. A sort of vessel to justify his own actions without the need of personal responsibility, because with this socialism structure he imagined everything is supported by the state while at the same he paints the picture that his individuality residues outside the boundaries of such a construct.
How one can be so oblivious about a governed state form that requires a collective consensus of capital that somehow the very necessity of collective cultural and moral community is abolished.

[Anonymous No.12317378]

It doesn't mean not owning your own house or you own farm. It means collectively (if it's a workplace that requires collective work) owning your workplace. It means control of the value YOU create, the sovereignity to do with your work what capitalism and the free market didn't allow for. Privaye property robs people of the value they create, reduces and redirects creative flows in to nothing more than commodities to be bougjt and sold. Private property and the market completely chrushes the human spirit and the individual.

[Anonymous No.12318718]

>>12317378
What if I paid someone to do something for me? Am I bad capitalist then?

[Anonymous No.12318765]

>>12316990
If you haven't already, you may be interested in reading about Distributism. It's the only economic policy officially sanctioned by the catholic church.

One of my personal favorites in this vein, although not expressly distributist, is Pope France's casus belli, ON CARE FOR OUR COMMON HOME.

https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

[Anonymous No.12318842]

>>12316868
It's an abolition of owning the means of production. You can still have stuff but you also have democratic power over your labor instead of being rented to work by someone else's interests and rules. Specifically in this essay, he argues that automating much of the work would allow everyone enough free time to express themselves artistically. Other forms of socialism do it by lowering the % unemployment to where everyone only works a little but making the hour-per-work more valuable. This allows basic needs and the freetime to explore one's own interests.

[Anonymous No.12320281]

>>12316868
It's bullshit, OP. This particular vein of thought exist as a way for socialist, communist, and other collectivist to avoid confronting the arguments of Max Stirner. I mean this completely unironically, by the way.

While it's true consumerism has presented this idea that your intrinsic worth/individuality is derived from what you own, it doesn't follow that you have to separate yourself from your property to attain "true individuality". You just have to not let what you own dictate you more than anything else you might consider what makes you, you.

[« ƸЖƷ » No.12320396]

>>12316875
>viral marketing: this is what memes have become

>>12316877
/pol/ has no idea.

>>12316917
It’s anarchism and it’s the most reasonable alternative to our current broken and expiring world.

>>12317027
The billionaire pays for his freedom by making others work for him

>>12317155
This

>>12320281
It’s perfectly compatible. Stirners union of egoists are what I would call non-sacred socialism.
Libertarian socialism

[Anonymous No.12320418]

>>12316868
excepting owning your own home/farm requires you to be a serf for whoever loaned you the money

[Anonymous No.12320434]

Private ownership is stealing from fellow men. You can't be an individual when everything's been robbed from most of the population.

[Anonymous No.12320466]

>>12317027
This is the only correct answer. Today's millionaires and billionaires are basically slaves to capital, they're in the vanguard of capital's army. But they're are still its subjects, they don't revolt and don't accept the profound contingency of Being. Billionaires are free from old-fashioned bosses, but they're still accountable by exec boards and other tools of capital. It is true that their degree of freedom is greater than that of the wageslave, but it is still lesser than that of the Amazonian tribesman.

[Anonymous No.12320491]

>>12320281
If you are bombarded by marketing devices, if your main source of image consumption is given by the American entertainment machine, if your main concerns are complying with bankers who've loaned the capital you used to build your business, if you use said money to take part on fluxes of "technological" consumption and touristic activities as promoted by social media agents, if your lifestyle choices and clothing style are influenced by the current market, you're not free. There Is absolutely no way of not being a slave to capital unless you do away with private ownership.

[Anonymous No.12320499]

>>12320396
Go back to your pit and die.

[« ƸЖƷ » No.12320524]

>>12320466
So wrong. Their lives may have no satisfaction, but they are free to do whatever the hell they want. They are free to retire or take extended holidays whenever they like.

[« ƸЖƷ » No.12320537]

>>12320499
This is my pit
And I will sink and rise from it as I please

Money is the token that freedom is bought with in this world, and it’s absurd. I would stripe it from society single handed if I could

[Anonymous No.12320561]

>>12320537
Like how you rise and sink on my long cock

[« ƸЖƷ » No.12320573]

>>12320561
Vulgar

[Anonymous No.12320575]

There is no perfect system. Advocating any construct over the individuals of which it is constituted is evil. Doesn't matter if it's capitalism, socialism, communism or any combination thereof. It will always come down to a handful of powerful killing millions of innocent.

[Anonymous No.12320584]

>>12320573
Haha wow

[Anonymous No.12320626]

>>12316868
1. the point isn't to abolish ownership as such but the abolition of private control of public goods and stopping government from backing up absentee owners of intangible assets and land
2. capitalism has already pretty much gotten rid of small farmers but people can always have gardens
3. you're assuming you need property in the first place to individuate yourself and society is better off forcing harder work instead of embracing more leisure which is questionable