I've been looking more and more into libertarian socialism and its types and i cant stop the idea of thinking it just cant work in today environment with all the capitalists and imperialist states and govss, as soon as the a nation becomes if it were to say libertarian socialist any gov will just attack it and try to take it over either direct military conflict or throw inside attacks, and due to the lack of proper planned industrialization and command military system it will not be able to fend off, or for the fact how would the communes/federations even function if one disagrees or even want their to create their own state and so they try to fight other communes/federations, and so on. and how would high level education work, how do you know if doctors or engineers are even capable to pass or not ?, or how would hospitals or and h ow would medicine be made, or constructions or justice system, and welfare, child education,etc
Could anyone explain this to me ?
Anarchism can be very valuable when you understand it more as a tactic than a worldview. Top down organized movements can be easily destroyed by states with an advanced security apparatus, if they take out their leadership.
>>2182831If other states were to adopt the Chinese model, China would not necessarily be friendly towards them. Just look at the history between China and Vietnam. As long as MLs can't fix these contradiction their states will keep ending up as hostile towards revolutions outside of their own borders.
>>2182883No he isn't, he's a pretty basic demsucc liberal. He's "libleft" on the Reddit meme chart and by self-identification, not in any actually meaningful sense of the word.
Also, take it to /isg/
>>2182873>>2182889Modern (post-Marx) socialism has been around for less than 200 years. To think that what has succeeded thus-far is the only thing that can ever succeed is, frankly, fucking stupid.
>>2182894>>2182895Saying "China isn't perfect" isn't the same as saying "USA good". China is the best we have right now. That doesn't mean that there isn't room for improvement.
Also, I want to know how you define "libertarian socialism". This isn't me trying to argue definitions; quite the opposite. I get the impression that we're working from very different definitions of the same word, so it would be helpful if each of us knew where the other stands.
>>2182898I wonder how all these libs could get into positions of power and dismantle a socialist state from the inside with minimal opposition.
>permanent purgesdoesn't happen in any current AES state
>>2182902>Saying "China isn't perfect" isn't the same as saying "USA good"It is when you use it as an excuse to dismiss Marxism Leninism entirely. China will never be “perfect” for you, because to firstoid leftists the perfect state is a nonexistent fairly land where surplus of every pointless commodity is made spontaneously and the people spend their days engaging in hedonistic sex and debating gender theory in their SpongeBob pajamas. China isn’t “perfect”, but it and Russia are far and away the best we’ve got and they’ll only improve further as American hegemony declines
>Also, I want to know how you define "libertarian socialism"Marxists don’t use definitions, but even humoring this “libertarian socialism” is a form of bourgeois socialism as described by Marx in the Manifesto which promises excess under meaningless French Revolutionary slogans. In practice (Nazi Germany, Makhnovia) “libertarian socialism” is just naked terrorism by the most reactionary elements of the bourgeoisie without a state to inhibit their whims
>>2182903>I wonder how all these libs could get into positions of power and dismantle a socialist state from the inside with minimal oppositionStalin’s eagerness to forgive and to see the best in people is primarily at fault for allowing the remnants of Trotskyism to fester and destroy the USSR. And it didn’t fall with “minimum opposition”, it took decades of fighting against communists and dismantling socialism from within before they finally got confident enough to make it official.
>doesn't happen in any current AES stateLiterally every AES state from Mao onward incorporates regular purges of the party and the real movement, and they have not collapsed
>>2182910>and Russia>In practice (Nazi Germany, Makhnovia) “libertarian socialism” is just naked terrorism by the most reactionary elements of the bourgeoisie without a state to inhibit their whimsIf I were to false flag as an ML, trying to make MLs look bad, this would be the exact sort of stuff I'd post.
>>2182911You are delusional. Mao criticized Stalins purges as unnecessarily brutal. Deng was even more anti purges.
>>2182914You learned the word “dirigisme” a few days ago didn’t you? It should go without saying a program by the French state to direct capital to serve imperialism has nothing to do with Marxism Leninism
>>2182915>If I were to false flag as an ML, trying to make MLs look bad, this would be the exact sort of stuff I'd postWhatever helps you cope, sorry that I have actually read and understood Marx
>You are delusional. Mao criticized Stalins purges as unnecessarily brutal. Deng was even more anti purgesThis is a rather reductive way of looking at the situation. Stalin’s purges were indeed “brutal” precisely because he let counterrevolutionary sentiment build up until it was actively committing terrorist attacks, and rogue elements of the NKVD made use of this environment to terrorize people. Mao and Deng did not make this mistake because by constantly being on the lookout for counterrevolution you can more easily and cleanly relive it when it crops up
>>2182921you are a caricature lmao
you will never truly be a threat to the bourgeois state you live in
>>2182910>It is when you use it as an excuse to dismiss Marxism Leninism entirely.Well it's a good thing I didn't do that then, isn't it? I can understand the confusion, because I'm using the same flag, but I am not OP.
I think that Marxism-Leninism is a good starting point, mostly because it does, in fact exist, unlike other forms of socialism which are primarily if not entirely theoretical. But limiting the imagination to what has already been tried is an extremely conservative mindset that gets you nowhere.
>China will never be “perfect” for you, because to firstoid leftists the perfect state is a nonexistent fairly landYeah, obviously. But "not perfect != bad". China's done a lot of great things; they're the second biggest economy in the world, and
the fastest growing. That's nothing to sneeze at. But I don't think there's anything wrong with asking how we can expand upon China's already existing successes.
>where surplus of every pointless commodity is made spontaneously and the people spend their days engaging in hedonistic sex and debating gender theory in their SpongeBob pajamas.I think you have mistaken me for someone else!
>China isn’t “perfect”, but it and Russia are far and away the best we’ve got and they’ll only improve further as American hegemony declinesI agree with you on China, but Russia? Fuck no! How could you forget about Vietnam, or Korea, or Cuba? Russia is (currently) on the right side of geopolitics, but so was the US in WWII. They are an ally in the war on imperialism, not an example we should be looking to for socialism.
That aside, as I said before, we should always be looking forward. To say "we should be improving on what China has done" isn't a put-down of China, it's a warning against complacency.
>Marxists don’t use definitionsMarxists are not prescriptivists. The point isn't that words have no meaning, but rather that the same word will be used differently depending on both the speaker and the context, and as such, we should focus on the ideas words represent rather than getting hung up on what a word "ought" to mean. This approach to language isn't specific to Marxism by the way, I originally learned of it from Nietzsche. When I ask you for a definition, I'm asking how
you specifically use that word in this context. I already have my own notion of what libertarian socialism is, but it may very well disagree with yours, so I want to make sure we're being clear with eachother.
>is a form of bourgeois socialism as described by Marx in the Manifesto which promises excess under meaningless French Revolutionary slogans. In practice (Nazi Germany, Makhnovia) “libertarian socialism” is just naked terrorism by the most reactionary elements of the bourgeoisie without a state to inhibit their whimsAs I suspected, there's a linguistic gap. When I say libertarian socialism, I don't mean statelessness, or even a weak state. A state is absolutely necessary, at least in the short term, and especially when you need to contend with capitalists.
What I propose is a state built around subsidiarity, democracy, and, obviously, firmly established socialist economics. There has, to my knowledge, never been a state that has done everything I want out of a state at once, but states with these individual qualities have existed many times throughout history: the early United States had a great deal of subsidiarity, the Soviet Union under Stalin had firmly established socialist economics, and there's like a million examples of democracy, so take your pick. If each of these was able to exist individually, I don't see why they can't all exist in the same state.
>>2182909This. 100% this.
>>2182920I am not OP, but see above. The individual qualities I vouch for are not at all theoretical. The only thing that has yet to be seen is a state that combines them all together.
>>2182822>Claims to be a Libertarian Socialist>Claims Libertarian Socialism has never been tried and never worked>Says he can't find any evidence of how it would defend itself or how people could work in such a societyAny person apporaching this topic genuinely, any person who pays any attention to the international socialist struggle, should be well of the existence of the Zapatistas and of Rojave to name but a few have established, operate, and defend Libertarian Socialist societies.
Is Chiapas in ruins because of the EZLN? Are the Kurds unable to govern because of their policies? have you made any attempt to investigate how these societies work in practice. Of course not.
If you are genuinely questioning the things you say you do, then let me respond by saying you should at least do the most basic, fundemental research into the positions you claim to hold before claiming to hold them.
>>2182828>>2182831>Libertarian Socialists are all infantileAre Chomsky, Varoufakis, Bookchin, every Anarchist - Kropotkin, Bakunin, and so on - all infantile compared to yourself? What makes you more mature than them?
>Modern China is Marxist-LeninistEven China doesn't claim this. They claim to be "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" which depending on your stance is either Market Socialism or State Capitalism.
As a supposed Marxist-Leninst, maybe you should do the basic research to understand which states proclaim to adhere to your ideology and which do not.
>>2182923Imagine posting with this flag and claiming never to have heard of the EZLN. You love Nicaragua but have never heard of Chiapas? This was a painful post to read.
>>2182883ML-ist spams the thread with clips of an American Democratic Socialist sexual pervert because people are discussing a form of Socialism besides ML-ism and that very fact alone is enough to trigger him.
Having a mental breakdown because other people won't convert to your position immediately when you ask them to should be a bannable offense.
>>2183736>Even China doesn't claim this. read Communist China's constitution.
https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/lawsregulations/201911/20/content_WS5ed8856ec6d0b3f0e9499913.html<Both the victory in China’s New Democratic Revolution and the successes in its socialist cause have been achieved by the Chinese people of all ethnic groups under the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the guidance of Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought by upholding truth, correcting errors, and surmounting many difficulties and obstacles. Our country will long remain in the primary stage of socialism. The fundamental task for our country is to concentrate on achieving socialist modernization along the road of socialism with Chinese characteristics. We the Chinese people of all ethnic groups will continue, under the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the guidance of Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, the Theory of Three Represents, the Scientific Outlook on Development and Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, to uphold the people’s democratic dictatorship, stay on the socialist road, carry out reform and opening up, steadily improve the socialist institutions, develop the socialist market economy and socialist democracy, improve socialist rule of law, apply the new development philosophy, and work hard in a spirit of self-reliance to modernize step by step the country’s industry, agriculture, national defense, and science and technology and promote coordinated material, political, cultural-ethical, social and ecological advancement, in order to build China into a great modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious and beautiful, and realize the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. >>2183832Desentralised planning creates too much waste thanks to variated desires from people and is incapable of universal work for common goals because it's multiple plans, it also would be responsible for regional inequality and possible Yugoslav situation where richer provinces would not want to develop poor ones.
And central militaries on socialist nations never really couped their own nations even with massive militarism on them in some cases.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against these policies my problem is I don't see how decentralized plans and militias versus command militaries are exclusive to one another, it's possible to adapt to have them both at the same time by effective social reorganization.
>>2183918>Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, the Theory of Three Represents, the Scientific Outlook on Development and Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New EraOkay, so which is it?
What positions do they hold in practice?
Where did Marx or Lenin call for hyper-capitalistic market socialism with special economic zones that disregard socialism altogether?
Reading words isn't everything, you have to look at reality too.
>>2184118Yeah that's the cherrie on top, but what makes it truly hilarious is that it debunks the myth that capitalists are competent.
Apparently communists do even that better.
>>2184212>here is nothing central planning can do that decentralized planning can not except fuck up on a large scale.except you know exist for comparation, had to use Yugoslavia for comparation and they were not using desentralized planning, so we are comparing an idea to something that existed but had problem, which is idealist.
but using the logic of decentralized planning shows problems such as these because there are no organ overseeing these plans so they overproduce and underproduce at their own pace and denying production of certain products if they don't feel like producing it, as well as issues such as inequality would become aparent and because richer regions would have plans that only develop themselves with risk of sedentionist wanting to balkanize the region, decentralized planning aint the pure snowflake that Libertarian socialist thinks it is even on idea.
like i told, nothing against this type of planning by itself, in the end just like centralised planning it comes to implementation and reproduction of it, but for me the big meme is trying to create a whole new ideology to put these plans as unique to them because they are just policy and nothing stops Centralised and non Centralised planning to work together under a cohesive planned economy.
>>2184413Based.
Can you please please make this into an effort post I think it's high time the Leninists got humbled
>>2184980Agent Kochinski seems like the greatest libertarian communist of the 21st century, his theoritical argument of "why you are not more libertarian bro, be more Free, let whites say uyghur" is the apex of this ideology's achievement and seamingly the most organized effect on society.
truly a deliverer of trvkes over the redfash tankie MLoid subhumans.
>>2183609You act as if I’ve been epically owned by your Agent Kochinski clips that I didn’t watch, but I have virtually nothing in common with the guy in terms of politics. “This is what you look like!” doesn’t work when I don’t look anything like that.
>>2183963>Desentralised planning creates too much waste thanks to variated desires from peopleIf we follow your logic to its natural conclusion, having multiple nations creates too much waste and we should all be one giant super-state with the same laws applied to everyone. But nobody here thinks that’s a good idea (I hope), since you’re not going to be able to account for the needs, let alone wants, of such a massive variety of different people from different backgrounds living in different circumstances all at once.
And it’s not like tiny localities can’t exist individually. City states have been a pretty regular occurrence throughout history, and Singapore, a country that’s the size of a speck on a map even when zoomed in, has been able to exist just fine in the modern era. So it’s not a stretch to think that a federation of Singapore-sized microstates is possible.
>and is incapable of universal work for common goals because it's multiple plansTell that to BRICS. Separate nations work together in shared interests all the time, and they’re separate nations. If they can work together, multiple localities in one state most certainly can.
>it also would be responsible for regional inequality and possible Yugoslav situation where richer provinces would not want to develop poor ones.That’s very fair. In that situation, I do think a hybrid approach would probably work better, where industries that handle basic things like production of raw materials are managed by state-run institutions that distribute them to individual localities based on need. But said institutions should still be run in a way where authority over them is democratic. Off the top of my head, a system that might work would be to have each institution run by a handful of people, each an elected official from a different region, with the regions represented regularly cycling out so that none of them gets disproportionate power over the federation as a whole.
But then again, individual city states are a thing, so I’m not sure if this is even necessary, at least from an existential, “maintaining the federation’s existence” perspective.
>And central militaries on socialist nations never really couped their own nations even with massive militarism on them in some cases.A central military is good insofar as it’s a means of keeping local militaries in check, and keeping the state safe from outside attacks. But otherwise, it should be very limited.
Obviously, historical circumstances apply, and not everything I proposed is 100% airtight. But the overall point still stands; the kind of libertarian socialism I’m envisioning is not without basis in reality, and not outside of the realm of possibility.
>>2185009In all seriousness, fuck that guy. Fuck him six ways from sunday. I wouldn't be surprised if he was some kind of glowop trying to make leftism look bad.
>>2184105all of them
Communist
not what China is
Communist China is supreme Communist system
>>2185096<decentralization and democratization of authority.research Kronstadt and learn why that is inimical to proletarian interest
>>2185075<You act as if I’ve been epically owned by your Agent Kochinski clips that I didn’t watch, but I have virtually nothing in common with the guy in terms of politics. “This is what you look like!” doesn’t work when I don’t look anything like that.Libertarian socialists are all the same. I help you correct your disorder with this self criticism form. Complete it and prove your words.
<China's done a lot of great things; they're the second biggest economy in the worldincorrect crypto-imperialist thought. Communist China is biggest economy by far.
<I'm more interested in the decentralization and democratization of authority.Communist China has accomplished this. State is centralized to proletariat by proletarian democracy.
Reflect on how your views may have been influenced by Western media, political biases, or other external factors.
Outline steps you will take to further educate yourself about China's political and economic system and the principles of Marxism-Leninism.
>>2184022i dont think so. rather they say that the contradictions of commodity production continue during the preliminary and primary phases of communism
>>2184212>You literally can just ask before handthese arent mutually exclusive, and its much easier with computers. you can just ask before hand and take that into account with central planners. transitioning to this might hit some speed bumps but would correct itself because of the access to data we now have makes the feedback loop quick
>>2185075>I do think a hybrid approach would probably worki think that "central planning" is already sort of a hybrid approach. micromanagement is inefficient, but having idk iron miners completely detached from the steel industry is nonsensicle and basically a reproduction of market anarchy where producers just work for the potential to trade their goods. that doesn't mean some bureaucrat tells you what angle to dig at. i think things will naturally decentralize to the extent that geography determines the locations of certain industry but will be centralized to the extent that societies become interconnected
>>2185252>contradictions of commodity production continueHow is China going to overcome them?
>>2185261China has generalized commodity production. Pretty much everything a common person owns in China, was produced as a commodity. You can't compare this to medieval markets or individual artisans, who may continue producing commodities under socialism.
>Commodity is not problem, capital isHey Agent Kochinski schizo, how about you post the corresponding clip for this one.
>>2185317>failed utopian socialist money isnt moneyWhy not just use money? Labor vouchers are fucking idiotic. All Communist States use money, not labor voucher.
>utopian socialist failure money aint ever been tried beforeOwen. Proudhon. Countless amerikkkan and europe utopian socialist towns, all more capitalist than any Communist State. All vapid failures.
>>2185328 (me)
And for some reason the state especially bourgeois dictatorships seem to freak out and shut them down.
>>2185238>research KronstadtI will. I'm admittedly more knowledgeable of Soviet politics than I am Soviet history, which I only know the broad strokes of.
>Libertarian socialists are all the same.That's just objectively wrong. I'd say, if anything, "libertarian socialism" had
too many meanings attached to it. My thought is unironically closer t Murray Rothbard than it is anything that came out of Agent Kochinski's prolapsed anus, but we're lumped together anyway for whatever reason.
>incorrect crypto-imperialist thought. Communist China is biggest economy by far.By what measure? Because in terms of GDP, it's still number 2. I'm aware that GDP isn't the best measure of economic power, but I have yet to find a better alternative. If you have any suggestions, I'm more than willing to look into them. Anyway, I don't see how saying "China is the second biggest economy in the world and the number one fastest growing" is anything other than a massive compliment.
>Communist China has accomplished this.In some limited, very limited capacity, yes, but not really. Most of China is treated, more or less, as a monolithic block from a legal perspective. Hong Kong and Macau are closer to the kind of autonomy I advocate for, but they have the opposite problem, in that the Chinese government allows them to be insufficiently socialist and self-contained.
>Reflect on how your views may have been influenced by Western media, political biases, or other external factors.You act as if I hold a negative view of China, which I don't.
>>2185533Murray Rothbard regularly contradicted himself not just in support of capitalism as contradictory to freedom but his support of police violence and thinking people should be free to starve their children to death by not feeding them even though he did suggest he was against it morally but morals are pretty meaningless if you don't hold people accountable for their actions.
>>2185327Labour vouchers don't really make sense as paper so I dont know how or if they would have worked in the past but these days it obviously would work as a digital currency.
>>2185670>>2185670>How do you reconcile ancap ideology with socialism?My relationship with anarcho-captialism is mostly geneological at this point. Most of my core political ideas can, in some way, be traced back to Rand and Rothbard, but they've mutated so heavily by this point that, as a whole, they’re a different beast entirely. I backed off on the anarcho part (mostly because of Rand, who, correctly, stated that capitalism needs a nation and the associated institutions for property to exist), and later the capitalist part as I broadened my intellectual horizons and started more seriously studying politics, economics, and history. The result is ancapism without the an or the cap, which is to say, not ancapism at all.
I don’t have an exact system in mind, all the way down to the last detail, partially because I don’t want to commit to something that turns out to be wrong when tested against reality, and partially because material conditions have a massive impact on what is not only advisable but baseline possible that trying to figure everything out on a sheet of paper is generally untenable. I do, however, have the big-picture shape of things down, so if you want that, here it is:
In the broad-strokes, my preferred society is a federation of city-states, all about the size of China’s special administrative zones. The federation as a whole would function somewhere between the early US, the EU, and China. The commanding heights of the economy would be managed by federation-wide “companies”, under the control of representatives from these city-states, and using some kind of system to prevent any individual city-state from gaining too much power or otherwise taking advantage (I have multiple ideas on how to handle this, but if I listed them it would bloat the fuck out of this post). The federal government also manages a federal army, which exists to check the power of city-state-wide militias and to defend against outside threats. But otherwise, the individual states are fully autonomous, and are free to run themselves however they want, provided they don’t get into conflict with eachother or step on the federal government’s toes.
Note that this is indeed a rough sketch, but hopefully it gets across the general idea of what I vouch for.
>>2186082 (me)
Fuck, forgot the flag.
>>2185075> If we follow your logic to its natural conclusion, having multiple nations creates too much waste and we should all be one giant super-state with the same laws applied to everyone. But nobody here thinks that’s a good idea (I hope), since you’re not going to be able to account for the needs, let alone wants, of such a massive variety of different people from different backgrounds living in different circumstances all at once.Multiple nations indeed create waste and often don't have the economics of scale to achive a sustainable mass productions of certain goods, see for example the production of computers in the COMECON. Centralizing production is obviously more efficient, so much so that porky has already been doing it for decades, first with large buisnesses, then multinationals and more recently by unified markets such as the EU, NAFTA and ASEAN. Even if the world would become majority socialist we would still see the creation of economic blocks for centralizing the production of some things. This of course doesn't mean that we should centralize everything: Bruxelles could hypotetically plan steel production for the entire european peninsula without and issue, but I doubt they would even have the knowledge that we need panzerotti kiosks at all, even less so how many and where to place them.
> Tell that to BRICS. Separate nations work together in shared interests all the time, and they’re separate nations. If they can work together, multiple localities in one state most certainly can.They're capitalist nations, once they develop enough they'll be at each other throat in no time
Unique IPs: 46