Rep. Urges Democratic Party Removed for Historically Supporting Racism

[UltraSUPRA]

Did you even read the page or did you stop as soon as you saw the word Marxism? Libertarian Socialism is inherently opposed to any form of hierarchy, and that includes state (government) control. I don't see how you can link war criminals to Libertarian Socialism when the pure nature of the ideology makes it so that war criminals fundamentally cannot exist under Libertarian Socialism.

There's this movie called The Purge.

 

[MFDC12]

This only works in small tribes. Are you for the desintegration of countries?

Major cities (much like jobs) like we know it now probably won't exist in ancom/libsoc society because of this. There are some proposals on how it would work, it's honestly a matter of what works for that area/commune-dependent (resource-wise, logistics, etc) - some people propose something (let's just use NYC as an example) by splitting that into wards - In the NYC exapmple most likely the specific neighborhoods in each borough, and those wards make the commune.

As for the other question - I'm anarcho-communist (it's adjacent to libsoc/basically falls under the same umbrella as an extension on the ideology) and in communism there are no borders, so no countries - I'm fairly certain that it's the same as libsoc (which Seliph is).

 

[Seliph]

This only works in small tribes. Are you for the desintegration of countries?

Yeah, @MFDC12 said it pretty much exactly how I'd put it.

I believe in no nations, no borders.

I don't call myself Anarcho-Communist simply because I think Libertarian-Socialist is easier for people to understand and it reappropriates the term Libertarian from American Right-Libertarians aka AnCaps (nasty people). They don't deserve it.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

If you do not believe in borders, the same will happen as in CHOP/CHAZ. Non-productive members will flood your community and you will all end up in poverty.
There is no way you can achieve a borderless world. As long as there is one nation with borders, you will be at the receiving end (literally). I.e. you will receive their worst (because you cannot stop migration) of that nation but not vice versa.
Borders are a natural extension of the family structure. Do you also propse a sort of matriarchy?

 

[Seliph]

If you do not believe in borders, the same will happen as in CHOP/CHAZ. Non-productive members will flood your community and you will all end up in poverty.

Well, first of all, the CHOP did have borders.
Second of all, the CHOP didn't dissolve due to "non-productive" members flooding the community.

A lot of misinformation goes around about the CHOP, this video clears things up pretty well.

There is no way you can achieve a borderless world. As long as there is one nation with borders, you will be at the receiving end (literally). I.e. you will receive their worst (because you cannot stop migration) of that nation but not vice versa.
Borders are a natural extension of the family structure. Do you also propse a sort of matriarchy?

Native Americans, Aboriginals, Inuit People, and many other indigenous peoples all lived in societies without nations or borders, I don't see why it's impossible to achieve a borderless world when in reality we've been living in a borderless world for most of human history.

Not sure where you got the notion that borders are a natural extension of the family structure either, I don't see any connection. Borders are just arbitrary boundaries used to outline the land that a nation has control over. This has nothing to do with family structure.

Lastly, of course, I don't propose a sort of matriarchy. I'm against any form of unjust/unnecessary hierarchy, and that includes matriarchy. This is a basic tenant of Libertarian Socialism.

 

[KingVamp]

See, this is why you can't lump up the "left" together. All I want to see is us moving towards the Nordic model.

 

[CallmeBerto]

See, this is why you can't lump up the "left" together. All I want to see is us moving towards the Nordic model.

You really can't lump the right together either. It's sad because we have this your either with us or against us mentality. Life isn't that simple.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

You really can't lump the right together either. It's sad because we have this your either with us or against us mentality. Life isn't that simple.

That's because we don't have conflicting goals.

 

[PizzaBitez]

Hm. Interesting enough!

 

[SG854]

Well, first of all, the CHOP did have borders.
Second of all, the CHOP didn't dissolve due to "non-productive" members flooding the community.

A lot of misinformation goes around about the CHOP, this video clears things up pretty well.


Native Americans, Aboriginals, Inuit People, and many other indigenous peoples all lived in societies without nations or borders, I don't see why it's impossible to achieve a borderless world when in reality we've been living in a borderless world for most of human history.

Not sure where you got the notion that borders are a natural extension of the family structure either, I don't see any connection. Borders are just arbitrary boundaries used to outline the land that a nation has control over. This has nothing to do with family structure.

Lastly, of course, I don't propose a sort of matriarchy. I'm against any form of unjust/unnecessary hierarchy, and that includes matriarchy. This is a basic tenant of Libertarian Socialism.

I hate borders and arbitrary lines & boundaries. Sometimes I just want to go in my neighbors house crossing their property and lie on their couch without them calling the cops on me. They have a really nice comfy couch. I want a boarderless world.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

Here's my thoughts on a borderless world without any form of government.

You want it? Fine. Go on ahead and watch as the world burns with rampant domestic terrorism until a few brave souls stand up for themselves and within a few hundred years establish a Feudal economy. That's your beautiful Utopia, it's basically a BLM protest stretched too far.

 

[CallmeBerto]

Here's my thoughts on a borderless world without any form of government.

You want it? Fine. Go on ahead and watch as the world burns with rampant domestic terrorism until a few brave souls stand up for themselves and within a few hundred years establish a Feudal economy. That's your beautiful Utopia, it's basically a BLM protest stretched too far.

A borderless world could work just fine the problem is two fold that I can see.

1.) conflicting cultures; basically if you live in a community that doesn't share the same values as you that can cause issues. You will need different smaller communities that believe in god; any old really or freedom or whatever. Culture/shared values is the key.

2.) Get rid of the welfare state; that is the biggest problem, you have many people that come to first world countries just for free shit. This would be fine IF the took the money and worked on bettering themselves; however multi generational welfare dependency is a serious issue. The USA for example has spent fuck loads of cash and the problem hasn't gotten better. A better option is having communities work together and pull their money together and help those they want. Some kind of contract where person X will pay back the community in 5 years or something like that.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Oh and some government will always be needed. Whoever controls the military, police and the courts system is the government. You might as well create one and get that out the way ASAP.

 

[Xzi]

Get rid of the welfare state; that is the biggest problem, you have many people that come to first world countries just for free shit. This would be fine IF the took the money and worked on bettering themselves; however multi generational welfare dependency is a serious issue. The USA for example has spent fuck loads of cash and the problem hasn't gotten better.

It's not that people aren't attempting to better themselves, it's that this is very much a feature of American capitalism, not a bug. Minimum wage is less than half of what it should be in 2020 when accounting for inflation and increased productivity, and corporations continuously lobby to keep it that way, passing the rest of the burden onto the government. A recent study found that minimum wage workers cannot afford rent in any state. Minimum wage would have to be increased to $15/hour in most states and $20/hour in certain others in order to remedy the excess burden on welfare and taxpayers.

And then of course there's also privatized prisons and the 13th amendment continuing the never-ending cycle of slave labor, poverty, and recidivism. The result of all this being that wealth inequality in the US is currently worse than it was in France circa 1790. You probably already know what major event happened during that time period, so I won't bore you with a history lesson.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

It's not that people aren't attempting to better themselves, it's that this is very much a feature of American capitalism, not a bug. Minimum wage is less than half of what it should be in 2020 when accounting for inflation and increased productivity, and corporations continuously lobby to keep it that way, passing the rest of the burden onto the government. A recent study found that minimum wage workers cannot afford rent in any state. Minimum wage would have to be increased to $15/hour in most states and $20/hour in certain others in order to remedy the excess burden on welfare and taxpayers.

And then of course there's also privatized prisons and the 13th amendment continuing the never-ending cycle of slave labor, poverty, and recidivism. The result of all this being that wealth inequality in the US is currently worse than it was in France circa 1790. You probably already know what major event happened during that time period, so I won't bore you with a history lesson.

The correct minimum wage is $0.

 

[Seliph]

The correct minimum wage is $0.

Bruh you read everything that Xzi wrote and that's all you can come up with? Disappointing.

 

[CallmeBerto]

@Xzi

I don't agree increasing the Minimum wage would be a good thing; in fact economics seems to point that increasing the wage would hurt those that you are trying to help. The only one who should decide the vaule of your labor is the market. Labors are priced according to their skilled, the more value your skills can bring to the table, the higher they are paid. Doctors and engineers are paid above and beyond the minimum wage and there is no single law that tells their employers how much to pay them. If company X underpays, its workers would just leave that place and work for other company that would pay them what they are worth. If you force a company yo pay someone more then they are worth then hours, benefits etc will be cut.

Homes cost a ton due to over government regulations and people placing too much value on them.

I agree 100% on your point on privatized prisons; that is insane to me.

 

[MFDC12]

I hate borders and arbitrary lines & boundaries. Sometimes I just want to go in my neighbors house crossing their property and lie on their couch without them calling the cops on me. They have a really nice comfy couch. I want a boarderless world.

There is still personal property (the is a huge difference between private and personal property) and the people in that house have every right to protect it themselves. If someone tried to seize/break into someone else's property you need to be aware that there will be consequences, whatever form that might be (for example, if an individual tries to take my land by force, leftists believe everyone should be armed and they have an entire commune on their side who are there too...).

Here's my thoughts on a borderless world without any form of government.

You want it? Fine. Go on ahead and watch as the world burns with rampant domestic terrorism until a few brave souls stand up for themselves and within a few hundred years establish a Feudal economy. That's your beautiful Utopia, it's basically a BLM protest stretched too far.

Why would a horizontal, moneyless/stateless/classless society develop any form of economy, let alone a feudal economy? Care to elaborate what sort of domestic terrorism might occur, and why? You paint a very vague, inaccurate form of what anarchy actually is.

 

[Seliph]

Love that this thread started out as one video of a guy saying stupid things and has gradually turned into a full-on discourse (more or less) on what Anarchism means. Kropotkin is smiling.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

Why would a horizontal, moneyless/stateless/classless society develop any form of economy, let alone a feudal economy? Care to elaborate what sort of domestic terrorism might occur, and why? You paint a very vague, inaccurate form of what anarchy actually is.

As long as there are two people left on the planet, someone is gonna want someone dead.
As for the economy, would you mind reading about the development of civilization?

 

[CallmeBerto]

@UltraSUPRA @MFDC12

You don't even need to go as far as killing. (though that is a good point)

I'll give you an example why so kind of currency has to exist.

Let's say I grow Apples and Ultra grows peaches. Well how many apples should I give for his peaches. Now say that MFD has oranges. How many apples for oranges, how many peaches for oranges etc. It's already confusing with just the 3 of us. Now add 100's of other goods and services; how will anything ever get done if we spend all day trading? A common currency (normally precious metals) tends to fill this role.

Classless society will never be a thing because people are NOT equal. Some people are smarter, harder workers, born lucky etc. These people will raise to the top on the social ladder as they contribute more to society as a whole. Even in a small tribe there is always a village chief that everyone listens to.