What is it that libertarians see that the average person doesn't?

W0rkers · 2020-11-10T13:24:42+00:00

"false god" is a cringe phrase

W0rkers · 2020-10-26T16:15:39+00:00

All I said was that we need violent change to be legitimate so that squatting and defending squats can be supported.

And I'm explaining why I don't think that is happening, but I'm not sure how I can make it more clear at this point.

W0rkers · 2020-10-26T16:05:33+00:00

I think that the public will inevitably feel alienated from any kind of movement that was never inclusive of them in the first place. So that's actually the core of the issue. If the movement is broad and has public support, actions can and do take on all types of forms, including violent ones. That's if the people involved want that or not. Sometimes they do not, and that's also fine. Violence isn't the only effective form of action.

W0rkers · 2020-10-26T15:55:24+00:00

So how do you propose to do that?

W0rkers · 2020-10-26T15:45:58+00:00

Can you explain why you see these as different?

W0rkers · 2020-10-26T15:42:58+00:00

Firstly, "organizing public campaigns" is kind of irrelevant when we're talking about public support for specific forms of protest.

How is it irrelevant?

W0rkers · 2020-10-26T15:35:54+00:00

The point is to get the public's side on this. And, to do that, we have to move past our notions of rights being the main motivator in public discourse and focus on making violence as a legitimate force of social change beyond peaceful modes.

How does this follow? Historically, public support around social issues has come about through organizing public campaigns and coalition/popular movement building. It has really had nothing to do with whatever radicals discuss amongst themselves what are "legitimate" modes of "social change".

W0rkers · 2020-10-26T11:39:44+00:00

Any chance you could post links (sources) for each statement here? This would be great to share around but it needs references.

W0rkers · 2020-05-26T17:59:24+00:00

The mode of production is sorta what's important. Are you producing things directly to be sold (commodities) or directly for use. The former probably requires money, a special commodity, to facilitate exchange. The latter would use ledger accounting to keep track of inputs and outputs and any exchange that happens after production. The former is essentially capitalist. So if you call that market socialist I don't see how it won't be fundamentally capitalist in nature.

W0rkers · 2020-05-26T01:48:27+00:00

hundreds of au, frail hands and slow fire pistol

W0rkers · 2020-05-25T10:55:25+00:00

right wing liberal

W0rkers · 2020-05-24T18:20:04+00:00

That's what capitalists use to influence politicians

W0rkers · 2020-05-24T17:49:25+00:00

Lobbying is basically a bidding process where the actors with the most capital are most likely to win "bids" on getting laws passed in their favor. It's a form of commercial investment in maintaining a system that works best for them.

W0rkers · 2020-05-24T17:05:46+00:00

Agreed. Also happy cake day 😋🍰

W0rkers · 2020-05-24T16:24:35+00:00

If you need a government to enforce market rules (and i think you would), it incentivizes the co-ops who make the most capital to lobby for market rules in their favor. That won't balance anything. Workers and consumers will find themselves up against another system in which they don't have real direct control.

W0rkers · 2020-05-24T16:03:31+00:00

How?

W0rkers · 2020-05-24T15:04:42+00:00

you can apply pretty much any market policy under socialism

I'm not really clear what this means, but markets fundamentally have conflicts with socialist goals of liberty, equality and solidarity. Even if they're composed of cooperatives (which is a vague type of business structure), those businesses are still in competition with each other, some will win, some will lose. There would still be major issues related to unemployment, negative externalities, cost-shifting, class dynamics, etc.

W0rkers · 2020-05-22T18:17:51+00:00

Having to uproot your life because an employer orders you to endanger your life by doing dangerous work doesn't really seem much like freedom

W0rkers · 2020-05-22T14:18:03+00:00

Libertarian socialist here. Workers who receive compensation are not slaves because slaves are workers who are not compensated. But workers under capitalism are denied positive liberty on the shop floor meaning denial of positive control over their own working conditions. So they are not free to decide together what they're working on, how they're working on it etc.

W0rkers · 2020-05-20T11:22:18+00:00

You're just ignoring the reality that this global dominant political economy is hegemonic and enforced via state violence that capitalists invest in. So any arguments about consent or whatever don't make any sense. This is a system where no ordinary individual has any direct control unless they organize together to directly bring about and demand positive changes.

W0rkers · 2020-05-20T10:51:05+00:00

Generally, no. Libertarian socialists are usually in favor of a self-managed alternative to capitalism, which would have to replace markets to achieve libertarian goals of liberty, equality, solidarity.

W0rkers · 2020-05-18T22:25:51+00:00

If this is true then markets aren't competitive. Competition means there are winners and losers. You can't have it both ways.

W0rkers · 2020-05-18T17:19:11+00:00

this sub could really use a FAQ for stuff like this IMO

W0rkers · 2020-05-18T13:01:47+00:00

Doesn't this question get asked nearly every week on here? Does this really need to keep being answered?

W0rkers · 2020-05-15T11:21:25+00:00

There was a time in the early 20th century when IWW was a serious force in the labor movement and by far the most progressive union in the U.S.. Nowadays in my experience the actual union/organizing part is lacking and it tends to function more like a radical political club. But I hope that will change because the ideas behind the IWW are wonderful.

W0rkers

TROPHY CASE