Controversial General Political Discussion

[Roo]

You can because libertarian socialism's action plan is literally make strong unions and strong worker co-ops, it's not the "take over the state and be a dictator" leninist action plan

If private industries exist where worker co-op or unions arent required then hello buddy, you are back to capitalism

 

[Blax Blah]

"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the People's Stick."

Bakunin, guy who was libertarian socialist counter-part to Marx in his time

 

[Blax Blah]

If private industries exist where worker co-op or unions arent required then hello buddy, you are back to capitalism

No because if you have an economy where workers have functionally replaced the shareholders, and own and run their companies democratically, you have a socialist economy

Under capitalism, you COULD make an arrangement like in feudal times

Nobody does it, because it's inferior

But by that logic, it would mean we're in feudalism, not capitalism

 

[Blax Blah]

I mean @Roo I get that my explanation is quite long but


In the explanation I covered feudalism, capitalism, authoritarian socialism, libertarian socialism, and social democracy

@Roo

In socialism, there is no feudal lord and no capitalist, the workers themselves own the land and they become the share holders, and they decide things together and run it democratically





But there are 2 main schools of socialist thought:


Authoritarian socialism, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Deng Xiaoping, Xi Jinping

Libertarian socialism, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Bookchin

Social democrats were originally socialists too and I'll talk about that too, but they aren't socialists anymore





The difference between these 2 schools of thoughts is that they have two different approaches to how they think socialism should be built





The authoritarian socialist approach is, you win elections or do revolutions, and use the power of the state to make socialist reforms of the economy, and the idea is that the workers are empowered by those reforms, and eventually because the workers get so empowered, the role of the state stops having a role, the state withers away, and you end up with a stateless society run by the workers' organisations




The libertarian socialist approach is, you built workers organisations today, that on their own, through strong unions and such, get more powerful, because people would be less and less reliant on the state or on trying to get capitalists to raise wages through voting on policies, but instead rely on their own organisational power, and that bit by bit, that's how you end up with a society where workers run their own workplaces




Libertarian socialists criticise authoritarians' approach, saying that the means and ends to achieve a method are inter-connected, so that if you empower the state more and more, like authoritarians do, it is impossible to end up at a stateless worker-run society, because the means the authoritarians take do not lead to that end, and they also say that the authoritarians just replace the role of the shareholder


In the USSR, a group of capitalists didn't own the company you worked for, Stalin and his government owned the company you worked for

Same thing practically, workers don't own the means of production, someone else does, and they produce the value that those owners extract a part of, just for owning it






And social democrats originally were socialists that said the way to get to socialism is to win elections and reform capitalism with good pro-worker laws, and that that way you end up at socialism

Libertarian socialists also criticise authoritarian socialists, and say that authoritarians are just edgy social democrats

Which imo is true cause both social democrats and authoritarian socialists end up with the same things in practice, capitalist economy with some pro-worker laws"

___________________________________________________


What I said about authoritarian and libertarian socialism

This is the part specifically about


Authoritarian socialism


Vs


Libertarian socialism




I'm really interested what you'd think after reading it

 

[Roo]

But by that logic, it would mean we're in feudalism, not capitalism

no because feudalism doesn't allow for the economic liberties that capitalism does

capitalism allows for co-op and private industries to exist concurrently

if your "libertarian socialism" society allows for both, then it's a capitalist one with strong worker protections. If it doesn't then it's a socialist and authoritarian by defacto

 

[Blax Blah]

no because feudalism doesn't allow for the economic liberties that capitalism does

capitalism allows for co-op and private industries to exist concurrently

if your "libertarian socialism" society allows for both, then it's a capitalist one with strong worker protections. If it doesn't then it's a socialist and authoritarian by defacto

No I'm saying

In a capitalist economy, you can make a feudalist arrangement, but nobody does because it's inferior

A libertarian socialist economy is one where workers own and run their workplaces democratically

That is a superior arrangement and freer than capitalism, which itself is superior and freer than feudalism

 

[Roo]

That is a superior arrangement and freer than capitalism, which itself is superior and freer than feudalism

Yet people can currently do that and still prefer the capitalist style of ownership at bit with strong unions instead.

 

[Blax Blah]

Yet people can currently do that and still prefer the capitalist style of ownership at bit with strong unions instead.

I mean there isn't really a choice, you don't get to choose between worker co-ops and capitalist firms, because worker co-ops aren't nearly as big usually

Plus idk about strong unions, are modern day unions that strong?

 

[AL sama]

 

[Roo]

I mean there isn't really a choice, you don't get to choose between worker co-ops and capitalist firms, because worker co-ops aren't nearly as big usually

and you don't wonder why? This is why I accuse you of vibe politcking

Plus idk about strong unions, are modern day unions that strong?

Police Unions

Trade unions such as electricians

Retailers like Stop and Shop, Cotsco etc

 

[Blax Blah]

and you don't wonder why? This is why I accuse you of vibe politcking


Police Unions

Trade unions such as electricians

Retailers like Stop and Shop, Cotsco etc

Because to make worker co-ops big you preferably need 2 things:


1. Strong worker movement

2. People with wealth willing to give up the incentives of capitalism and fund the creation of strong unions, plus I guess time for worker co-ops to get to a big enough position

 

[Monkey D Theories]

Yeshua was a zionist

I think prescribing modern political identities onto a guy who lived 2000 years ago is anachronistic and nonsensical.

 

[Monkey D Theories]

How is the word goyim anti semetic? Have you read the Talmud and the commentary and the words of Rabbis? Rabbinic Jews and the Rabbis (no I'm not talking about your average Jew) have a system that discriminates against non Jews.

How is it anti semitic if I am calling out what they think about non Jews? This is like saying I am anti German for calling out Nazis for discriminating against non Germans

What system are you talking about? Because even in Israel, its not really if you are a goy or not, its if you are Israeli or not.

There are a lot of Israeli jews who are halachically goy. In fact if you have a jewish father but a goy mother, you are halachically goy but eligible for Israeli citizenship under law of return. Same if you or your mother converted under the reform or conservative sects of judaism. That's not even mentioning the 20% of Israelis who are arab.

A true halachic state has not existed for thousands of years.

 

[Roo]

I think prescribing modern political identities onto a guy who lived 2000 years ago is anachronistic and nonsensical.

Zionism is the belief of a Jewish state, Yeshua was born at a time where the Roman incursion into the Jewish land was a debated topic amongst the Jews and in the Bible there’s hints that he himself wasn’t very cool with the Romans

it is a bit anachronistic but by every sense of the definition he likely was a Zionist

 

[Blax Blah]

Zionism is the belief of a Jewish state, Yeshua was born at a time where the Roman incursion into the Jewish land was a debated topic amongst the Jews and in the Bible there’s hints that he himself wasn’t very cool with the Romans

it is a bit anachronistic but by every sense of the definition he likely was a Zionist

And according to the Bible, Jesus is God who created zionism and will rule from Jerusalem

 

[Monkey D Theories]

Zionism is the belief of a Jewish state, Yeshua was born at a time where the Roman incursion into the Jewish land was a debated topic amongst the Jews and in the Bible there’s hints that he himself wasn’t very cool with the Romans

it is a bit anachronistic but by every sense of the definition he likely was a Zionist

This just feels like when folks try to argue “Jesus was a Palestinian”.

Zionism, while having a connection to historical Jewish nationalism, is a modern movement. Nobody in Judaea used that term.

This flag didn’t exist 2000 years ago.

 

[Roo]

This just feels like when folks try to argue “Jesus was a Palestinian”.

Jesus being a Palestinian is retarded because Palestinian wasn’t a cultural identity back then. It would be the equivalent of calling the first settlers to America russian because they came from Siberia

Jesus having a strong wish for his free Jewish state maps into what Zionism eventually became. You do realize Zionism predates Israel right? That flag wouldn’t mean anything to the first Zionist either

anyways I was being tongue in cheek. Autism is killing yall

 

[Blax Blah]

Jesus being a Palestinian is retarded because Palestinian wasn’t a cultural identity back then. It would be the equivalent of calling the first settlers to America russian because they came from Siberia

Jesus having a strong wish for his a free Jewish state maps into what Zionism eventually became. You do realize Zionism predates Israel right? That flag wouldn’t mean anything to the first Zionist either

anyways I was being tongue in cheek. Autism is killing yall

What does tongue in cheek mean

 

[The Shaman King]

Jesus is literally the first zionist according to the Bible, he was the one who made that land and decided to give it to Israel

The bible says Jews are the children of the devil

 

[Monkey D Theories]

Jesus being a Palestinian is retarded because Palestinian wasn’t a cultural identity back then. It would be the equivalent of calling the first settlers to America russian because they came from Siberia

Jesus having a strong wish for his free Jewish state maps into what Zionism eventually became. You do realize Zionism predates Israel right? That flag wouldn’t mean anything to the first Zionist either

anyways I was being tongue in cheek. Autism is killing yall

ancient jewish nationalism is similar but has distinct differences with zionism.

Primarily, judea was a majority jewish area that was conquered and occupied by an outside power that the judeans were trying to repel. Meanwhile with zionism, you had jews in diaspora trying to conquer the ancient jewish homeland--which is no longer jewish--from the arabs who had lived there for generations.

Maybe Jesus would support that. The Palestinian jews did ultimately end up allying with the zionists. But also, Jesus is honored by muslim and christian palestinians, whereas he is viewed as a false prophet in judaism. So idk what he would support.