Simply put - take away incentives and people don't get out the front door to change the world.
That's indeed the case. But what relevance has any of that commentary to my post?
It's like a bully giving you a choice of being punched with his left fist or his right... They are not opposite extremes, just two flavors of socialism - I reject both of them.
Incorrect. The reference to socialism is a basic misapplication of political economy that does not consider the reality that socialism necessitates the collective ownership of the means of production.
The extreme I favor is the very top of the
Nolan Chart - complete individual liberty.
That test is an absurd corruption of political economy based on the capitalist misappropriation of the term "libertarian," a fitting reality considering its creation by LP founder David Nolan.
All small scale. On a large scale again it has never worked and can't.
That's incorrect. The primary example mentioned involved millions of participants.
This has been proven time after time.
What examples can you point to that involve a collapse of libertarian socialism because of internal structural deficiencies?
As I said 3 years is not an example of anything.
Actually, it's an example of the survival of libertarian socialism until its destruction by external military elements rather than internal deficiencies. But even if the example doesn't exist, that would be irrelevant to its feasibility, because we could still extrapolate conclusions formed about the superior efficiency of workers' ownership and management in their presently existing forms to elements of the framework of a socialist economic model.
The far left could mean socialists/communists/fascists so I would say that is more dangerous than the far right.
Socialism and fascism are contradictory doctrines, so I'd recommend trying again.
Stalinism/Communism is a state in which exploitation is controlled by a ruling caste.... at the expense of the working class." This is the exact opposite of what Marx and Engels were trying to accomplish, and is precisely what the Republicans are working so hard for.
A lot of people mistakenly believe that Socialism and Communism are the same thing. Socialism/Marxism is much more in line with the views of the far left. Stalinism/Communism is much more in line with the views of the far right.
No, it's erroneous to claim that the state capitalism of the Soviet Union was "communist" in any manner whatsoever, considering that communism is a variant of socialism.
Stalin's first move in power was to take property from individual farmers to create a national agriculutural collective. You really think he was in line with the views of the far right? The guy was a communist for the love of God.
I'm afraid not. Communism requires not only the precondition of socialism (the collective ownership and management of the means of production), but the additional elements of abolition of money, markets, and the state. It's absurd to claim that Stalinism or the USSR achieved "communism," and I don't know of anyone familiar with political economy who claims otherwise. Even self-professed Stalinists won't claim that.
Do you or do you not want the Constitution dissolved, if the answer is yes (as I believe it is considering your political affiliation) then you hate America and everything it stands for.
I'm not interested in your crude jingoistic sentiments. The Constitution itself is admittedly rather anti-democratic in a number of ways, and we're rather far removed from the agrarian conditions in which classical liberals presumed egalitarianism would flourish since presently existing corporate capitalism has radically altered previously existing settings, but the fundamental point is that I favor libertarianism and participatory direct democracy. I don't particularly care for arbitrary nationalistic distinctions; the maximization of liberty and democracy, fundamental ingredients in our capacity for self-governance and improved happiness are the relevant aspects. :shrug:
Yes yes the old "real communism has never existed try mine" schtick, the words of every future totalitarian communist regime ever to exist.
This simply illustrates more ignorance of political economy. I never claimed that "real communism has never existed"; on the contrary, I claimed that some degree of libertarian communism was implemented throughout the Spanish Revolution and that anarchist socialism in general was the norm. Your criticism is also obviously ignorant of socialist political economy, since libertarian socialists have consistently been critical of authoritarianism, and the rise of the Bolsheviki in the USSR, for example, was quickly condemned. As previously noted, the anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin wrote this in a 1921 letter to Lenin:
Russia has already become a Soviet Republic only in name. The influx and taking over of the people by the 'party,' that is, predominantly the newcomers (the ideological communists are more in the urban centers), has already destroyed the influence and constructive energy of this promising institution - the soviets. At present, it is the party committees, not the soviets, who rule in Russia. And their organization suffers from the defects of bureaucratic organization. To move away from the current disorder, Russia must return to the creative genius of local forces which, as I see it, can be a factor in the creation of a new life. And the sooner that the necessity of this way is understood, the better. People will then be all the more likely to accept [new] social forms of life. If the present situation continues, the very word 'socialism' will turn into a curse. That is what happened to the conception of equality in France for forty years after the rule of the Jacobins.
Tell me, are there any knowledgeable anti-socialists here capable of offering a sound criticism?
