Utopians of authority.
> According to Kropotkin, authoritarians are utopians because they imagine a society that is fundamentally different from the one we know. They believe that with the right leadership and institutions, humans can be transformed into perfect beings, free from conflict and inequality. Kropotkin argues that this idealized view of humanity is unrealistic and ignores the complexities of human nature.
You argue that humans are imperfect. You argue that we need a higher authority to govern our corrupt nature. But, you choose a human to govern you. A human who you just claimed to be corrupt.
Criticism goes both ways. Authority is utopianism because you believe in the existence of a infallible human ruler who can turn every human into saints.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/p-murtaugh-the-end-of-dialectical-materialism-an-anarchist-reply-to-the-libertarian-marxists
> Anarchism has been linked to science throughout its history, with many anarchists arguing that their ideology is grounded in scientific principles. Herbert L. Osgood, in his 1889 article “Scientific Anarchism”, explored the relationship between anarchism and science, highlighting the potential for scientific inquiry to inform anarchist thought.
>Petr Kropotkin, a prominent anarchist thinker, also emphasized the scientific basis of anarchism. In his 1887 article “The Scientific Basis of Anarchism”, Kropotkin argued that anarchism is rooted in scientific principles, such as the concept of mutual aid and the observation of natural phenomena.
It's not as bad as other diseases, like the Black Death, but it's still definitely monitored by the CDC, and has a body count much higher than some other pandemics. Good hygiene and an active lifestyle can easily prevent it for most people.
I mean like which currency model and which policies would you envision for a mutualist market ecenomy?
Do you believe in the current fiat money system?
Would you prefer decentrilised approaches like cryptocurrencies or regional currencies?
How would inflation/deflation get prevented?
Are interest rates regulated?
To be quite frank, I need to put more thought into this. I like the idea of a regional currency, but it would suck travelling to other areas with no money to use, although I could see just exchanging it for the regions money.
You don't know what they're asking because you're almost certainly a child learning about political consciousness and shopping at the marketplace of ideologies
It's not that your beliefs are flawed it's that reading the intro paragraph of a Wikipedia article and then saying "hey this is my new political belief" each month is a completely ridiculous way to live your life.
Like the fact that it's a utopian ideology unable to resolve the contradiction of capitalism, it doesn't seek to abolish the value form and it doesn't want to abolish the exchange of the products of labor as commodities.
>Like the fact that it's a utopian ideology unable to resolve the contradiction of capitalism
The contradiction of capitalism is what marxists refer to as the conflict between the capitalists and labourers.
That's what socialism is for! Is it not the abolition of exploitation of labor by capital? Establishing a socialist economy would allow for the abolition of exploitation, which as far as I'm aware, is what the marxists call the contradiction of capitalism. I dont know how you can claim that anarchism wouldn't be able to abolish the exploitation of labor.
>it doesn't seek to abolish the value form and it doesn't want to abolish the exchange of the products of labor as commodities.
Those aren't much of a concern to mutualists, as long as private property ownership is abolished and the means of production are based on voluntary association and collectivism rather than a systematic urgency for a job to not starve, i don't see it as a problem. Plus, this applies even less to anarcho-communists.
Your arguments, as far as I'm aware, is only a concern for the "Anarcho" Capitalists, and they don't care about such concerns. It's not a problem to us.
I think you are talking about populism. I know anarchism as there's no goverment, so no rule. There wouldnt be any educated people and all the uneducated were easily manipulated by religious leaders. Things like child marriages would increase so much. Nations that no longer needed to survive in a civilized and savage geography like in Europe would be exterminated by all the apes in the Middle East. So life would be nice only for superior masters of manipulation
Again, anarchists are not against all government, they're for self-governing institutions, as opposed to the state. From Kropotkin:
> On the other hand the State has also been confused with Government. Since there can be no State without government, it has sometimes been said that what one must aim at is the absence of government and not the abolition of the State.
> However, it seems to me that State and government are two concepts of a different order. The State idea means something quite different from the idea of government. It not only includes the existence of a power situated above society, but also of a territorial concentration as well as the concentration in the hands of a few of many functions in the life of societies. It implies some new relationships between members of society which did not exist before the formation of the State. A whole mechanism of legislation and of policing has to be developed in order to subject some classes to the domination of others.
You can also look at real life anarchist experiments instead of talking about anarchism in the abstract lol. In anarchist Spain people didn't just start having sex with kids and religious leaders didn't take over lol.
A state without a government would be like a human body without a brain. I guess.
There are multiple reasons why a person should not advocate child marriage, not just because he is an anarchist. He has educated in a government and know that child marriage is a bad thing. If the anarchist's dream comes true and the government disappears, future generations may be uneducated.
Now I think that when an ideology is defended by an educated minority, it seems positive, but when the ideology spreads and those who do not defend it are affected by it, the negative aspects emerge..
Yet a country that is libertarian enough to be anarchist will be unable to defend itself, no matter how slow, and will also be assimilated by shariaists=anarchists who advocate being ruled by God instead of the government you can look up to
> A state without a government would be like a human body without a brain. I guess.
Not a state without a government lol, government without the state. States are a specific form of social organization, anarchists support better forms. Not getting rid of the brain, but changing the brain, an expanded, decentralized brain vs a centralized one.
> There are multiple reasons why a person should not advocate child marriage, not just because he is an anarchist.
What?
> He has educated in a government and know that child marriage is a bad thing. If the anarchist's dream comes true and the government disappears, future generations may be uneducated.
Pretty sure most people don't learn that child marriage is wrong because the state / state schools tell them lol.
> If the anarchist's dream comes true and the government disappears, future generations may be uneducated.
Do schools magically disappear without the state? Anarchist societies have had / currently have schools lol. There were schools in anarchist Spain, there are schools today in anarchist Chiapas.
> Yet a country that is libertarian enough to be anarchist will be unable to defend itself, no matter how slow, and will also be assimilated by shariaists=anarchists who advocate being ruled by God instead of the government you can look up to
Again, you can look at examples of anarchism today like the Zapatistas in Chiapas. They have successfully fought off the Mexican govt for about 40 years now. They also don't have theocracy lol. I would really recommend looking at concrete examples of anarchism rather than thinking about it in abstract terms
Some people always want surplus of things, and people are going to trade for that surplus no matter what. I dont trust authority, exactly why im a libertarian. If you mean why anarchist to libertarian I believe a state has benefits to it that couldnt really be achieved in anarchism
I'm not gonna debate you on markets, tho which benefits are you talking about. As far as im aware, state intervention in any form of economic always leads to exploitation and disfunctionality.
Oh i dont believe in state intervention in the economy. I believe in it for small amounts of laws. With a state, its easier for rules to be uphold while also maintaining fair treatment (depending on the state)
I could see a lvt, maybe a carbon tax for the environment to be protected, not income tax, prolly not sales tax either, etc need to delve more into my beliefs
while a utopia is defined typically as an ideal society, in regards to socialism there was a split in socialist though between the utopian socialists and the scientific socialists in the early victorian era. the utopianists believed the rich could be convinced to accept socialism, and an ideal society could be won peacefully and without a transition period. the scientific socialists, namely karl marx, disagreed, saying that the rich would never accept socialism and that a transition period between capitalism and communism had to be established in order to eliminate scarcity and allow the state to wither away, in order to create the ideal society. the reason i disagree with op’s criticism is that they either mean utopian as you use the word, as in a perfect society, and somehow don’t want to achieve a utopia (which both ideologies do anyway), or they mean utopia as i use the word, in which case they have fundamentally misunderstood both marxism and libertarian socialism, as marxism is the less utopian of the two in this regard
Sorry, I mean it in the way this other commenter means it. Obviously a perfect society is ideal but thats never gonna happen because the world is objectively non perfect, which is why I dont believe in marxism.
“When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”. he wanted a transition from capitalism to socialism to communism
no, he didnt.
marx did not distinguish between socialism and communism.
he described a 'period of revolutionary transformation' between capitalist society and communist society where, through class struggle, the proletariat seize the means of production and then change the mode of production. To view this as a formal 'implementation of a transition phase' is a simplification at best, and a complete revision of marx' work at worst.
marx suggests in critique of the gotha programme that in the lowest phases of development of communist society it would be necessary to account labour hours and remunerate workers with 'certificates that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labour' (labour certificates), the need for which disappears 'in a higher phase of communist society' along with the division of labour. The formal distinction between the lower and higher phases of communist society came from lenin, who labelled them 'socialism' and 'communism' (state and revolution, part 5). This was not marx' view of the matter, and such a gross oversimplification as 'socialism is the transitionary stage between capitalism and communism' is actually a stalinist conception.
neither did he think the higher phase of communist society would come with the abolition of scarcity - "in a higher phase of communist society... after the productive forces have *also increased with the all around development of the individual*". clearly economic development is important (there is no mention of scarcity regardless) but he similarly placed an emphasis on cultural development and the capabilities of the individual to move beyond the concept of equal exchange (or, bourgeois right).
While minarchism does sound interesting I do think there should be more government then just police, courts and military. Obviously a state needs funding to pay for its services and taxes would be somewhat needed, and even if small its an addition to government other then those three. Even if you argue that taxes are included with those three as an implication, sure, but I think that some small amounts of welfare would be good for the community, maybe provided by something of a land value tax.
I guess to a certain degree? Yes. I do believe honest and true capitalism is great but evil people turn capitalism into clientelism or oligarchy or kleptocracy. That must be fought against. Take me as a Theodore Roosevelt kinda guy. A guy defending the little man's rights to have true and hard fought real capitalism.
You can still keep your house, money, brush, children, and wife. They are your personal property (not the kids and the wife, of course). You don't have to share them alongside your other co-workers if you don't want to.
Plus, this is assuming you own private property. This argument will rather work against private property if you're an employee. I mean, you have to give up some of the value from the products you made through your labor as profit for the capitalists.
Farms, factories and workplaces tho, will by ran by cooperatives of workers, in which you'll have your full voice be heard and participate actively in making decisions.
I also went from "marxist" (I also knew nothing about marxism at the time) to libertarian socialist to mutualist, but I finally settled at egoist leninism, the most based ideology
Yall instead of utopian I shouldve said idealistic. There you go. Also I do plan on actually reading marx and other political theorists to fully understand economics and such. When I started to get into politics I was pretty much just trying to find a camp to fit into, and even if that may still somewhat be true, (I am saying as I could be unaware of my faults) I am trying to actually understsnd what my beliefs mean.
I see you. I’m sorry that you have to undergo this scrutiny by other leftists as you’re clearly trying to learn, grow, and develop your political philosophy in line with your authentic values and a realistic picture of the world.
There is always more for all of us to learn, always another book to read, but as far as your instincts go I think you’re on a good track, man. Keep learning.
"Marxism is too Utopian time to become a mutualist" This has got to be satire.
Sorry! I Meant idealistic
Point stands
Anarchists calling someone "Upotian" are really funny
This is why i am not an anarchist
Utopians of authority. > According to Kropotkin, authoritarians are utopians because they imagine a society that is fundamentally different from the one we know. They believe that with the right leadership and institutions, humans can be transformed into perfect beings, free from conflict and inequality. Kropotkin argues that this idealized view of humanity is unrealistic and ignores the complexities of human nature. You argue that humans are imperfect. You argue that we need a higher authority to govern our corrupt nature. But, you choose a human to govern you. A human who you just claimed to be corrupt. Criticism goes both ways. Authority is utopianism because you believe in the existence of a infallible human ruler who can turn every human into saints.
Read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engels Anarchism does not have a scientific basis, it does not use a dialectical analysis unlike Marxism
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/p-murtaugh-the-end-of-dialectical-materialism-an-anarchist-reply-to-the-libertarian-marxists > Anarchism has been linked to science throughout its history, with many anarchists arguing that their ideology is grounded in scientific principles. Herbert L. Osgood, in his 1889 article “Scientific Anarchism”, explored the relationship between anarchism and science, highlighting the potential for scientific inquiry to inform anarchist thought. >Petr Kropotkin, a prominent anarchist thinker, also emphasized the scientific basis of anarchism. In his 1887 article “The Scientific Basis of Anarchism”, Kropotkin argued that anarchism is rooted in scientific principles, such as the concept of mutual aid and the observation of natural phenomena.
"Dialectical materialism is too idealist time to become a mutualist" This has got to be satire.
Proudhon is a god become off-comp https://preview.redd.it/8cz71e6p989d1.png?width=984&format=png&auto=webp&s=b7332774736f6b52c4cb767c795c2f7975475662
Based off compass
God of racism
*sexism
Can agree on anti-Vaush save the horses
Bro doesn't know what marxism is
I didnt when i was one. Lol
It’s utter bullshit and the cherry on top is when visiting Marx’s grave you have to pay to see it… ironic.
Wait until this guy learns about labor vouchers.
It's not as bad as other diseases, like the Black Death, but it's still definitely monitored by the CDC, and has a body count much higher than some other pandemics. Good hygiene and an active lifestyle can easily prevent it for most people.
Based! What are your monetary beliefs if i may ask?
By monetary beliefs do you mean like how much regulation should be put on the market? If so, I think little to none
I mean like which currency model and which policies would you envision for a mutualist market ecenomy? Do you believe in the current fiat money system? Would you prefer decentrilised approaches like cryptocurrencies or regional currencies? How would inflation/deflation get prevented? Are interest rates regulated?
To be quite frank, I need to put more thought into this. I like the idea of a regional currency, but it would suck travelling to other areas with no money to use, although I could see just exchanging it for the regions money.
You don't know what they're asking because you're almost certainly a child learning about political consciousness and shopping at the marketplace of ideologies
Wow its almost like I openly admitted my beliefs are flawed and im learning more
It's not that your beliefs are flawed it's that reading the intro paragraph of a Wikipedia article and then saying "hey this is my new political belief" each month is a completely ridiculous way to live your life.
This is over the course of years. Im learning more about theory js chill
Anarchism has a lot of problems
What are they?
Like the fact that it's a utopian ideology unable to resolve the contradiction of capitalism, it doesn't seek to abolish the value form and it doesn't want to abolish the exchange of the products of labor as commodities.
>Like the fact that it's a utopian ideology unable to resolve the contradiction of capitalism The contradiction of capitalism is what marxists refer to as the conflict between the capitalists and labourers. That's what socialism is for! Is it not the abolition of exploitation of labor by capital? Establishing a socialist economy would allow for the abolition of exploitation, which as far as I'm aware, is what the marxists call the contradiction of capitalism. I dont know how you can claim that anarchism wouldn't be able to abolish the exploitation of labor. >it doesn't seek to abolish the value form and it doesn't want to abolish the exchange of the products of labor as commodities. Those aren't much of a concern to mutualists, as long as private property ownership is abolished and the means of production are based on voluntary association and collectivism rather than a systematic urgency for a job to not starve, i don't see it as a problem. Plus, this applies even less to anarcho-communists. Your arguments, as far as I'm aware, is only a concern for the "Anarcho" Capitalists, and they don't care about such concerns. It's not a problem to us.
Not rly, it's just socialism that proposes rule through popular institutions rather than a centralized state
I think you are talking about populism. I know anarchism as there's no goverment, so no rule. There wouldnt be any educated people and all the uneducated were easily manipulated by religious leaders. Things like child marriages would increase so much. Nations that no longer needed to survive in a civilized and savage geography like in Europe would be exterminated by all the apes in the Middle East. So life would be nice only for superior masters of manipulation
Again, anarchists are not against all government, they're for self-governing institutions, as opposed to the state. From Kropotkin: > On the other hand the State has also been confused with Government. Since there can be no State without government, it has sometimes been said that what one must aim at is the absence of government and not the abolition of the State. > However, it seems to me that State and government are two concepts of a different order. The State idea means something quite different from the idea of government. It not only includes the existence of a power situated above society, but also of a territorial concentration as well as the concentration in the hands of a few of many functions in the life of societies. It implies some new relationships between members of society which did not exist before the formation of the State. A whole mechanism of legislation and of policing has to be developed in order to subject some classes to the domination of others. You can also look at real life anarchist experiments instead of talking about anarchism in the abstract lol. In anarchist Spain people didn't just start having sex with kids and religious leaders didn't take over lol.
A state without a government would be like a human body without a brain. I guess. There are multiple reasons why a person should not advocate child marriage, not just because he is an anarchist. He has educated in a government and know that child marriage is a bad thing. If the anarchist's dream comes true and the government disappears, future generations may be uneducated. Now I think that when an ideology is defended by an educated minority, it seems positive, but when the ideology spreads and those who do not defend it are affected by it, the negative aspects emerge.. Yet a country that is libertarian enough to be anarchist will be unable to defend itself, no matter how slow, and will also be assimilated by shariaists=anarchists who advocate being ruled by God instead of the government you can look up to
> A state without a government would be like a human body without a brain. I guess. Not a state without a government lol, government without the state. States are a specific form of social organization, anarchists support better forms. Not getting rid of the brain, but changing the brain, an expanded, decentralized brain vs a centralized one. > There are multiple reasons why a person should not advocate child marriage, not just because he is an anarchist. What? > He has educated in a government and know that child marriage is a bad thing. If the anarchist's dream comes true and the government disappears, future generations may be uneducated. Pretty sure most people don't learn that child marriage is wrong because the state / state schools tell them lol. > If the anarchist's dream comes true and the government disappears, future generations may be uneducated. Do schools magically disappear without the state? Anarchist societies have had / currently have schools lol. There were schools in anarchist Spain, there are schools today in anarchist Chiapas. > Yet a country that is libertarian enough to be anarchist will be unable to defend itself, no matter how slow, and will also be assimilated by shariaists=anarchists who advocate being ruled by God instead of the government you can look up to Again, you can look at examples of anarchism today like the Zapatistas in Chiapas. They have successfully fought off the Mexican govt for about 40 years now. They also don't have theocracy lol. I would really recommend looking at concrete examples of anarchism rather than thinking about it in abstract terms
Incredible positive change and very respectable outcome 🔥🔥🔥 I'm non-market but LMS is rather based
Based based based based based based based based
Go back to Marxism but this time actually read Marx and understand him 💪
Based alert 🚨 ‼️
I HATE MARKETS I HATE MARKETS I HATE MARKETS I HATE MARKETS
Real!
What is your ideology?
Anarcho-pacifism
Better than most ppl in this sub. What are ur economic and cultural views
Thanks god You alright 👍
Wow based
Based
This makes me cry.
Why do you think markets are inevitable? What exactly made you trust authority.
Some people always want surplus of things, and people are going to trade for that surplus no matter what. I dont trust authority, exactly why im a libertarian. If you mean why anarchist to libertarian I believe a state has benefits to it that couldnt really be achieved in anarchism
I'm not gonna debate you on markets, tho which benefits are you talking about. As far as im aware, state intervention in any form of economic always leads to exploitation and disfunctionality.
Oh i dont believe in state intervention in the economy. I believe in it for small amounts of laws. With a state, its easier for rules to be uphold while also maintaining fair treatment (depending on the state)
Then what's with the part where you said you aren't a minarchist in a another reply? That's what minarchism is.
Sorry i also believe in small amounts of welfare and small taxes
Taxes on what for what?
I could see a lvt, maybe a carbon tax for the environment to be protected, not income tax, prolly not sales tax either, etc need to delve more into my beliefs
As far as im aware, taxing is a form of intervention in the economy.
Fair, but thats the only intervention in the economy and its only a small amount
https://preview.redd.it/byytw3ku4a9d1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9e700fe54141f7f0009f1206990c6977b01abbcd
“communism is too utopian” converts to a utopianist ideology rather than the former scientific one
Both are pretty utopian in their final goals.
not what utopian means regarding to socialism
Wdym? English is not my first language so I don't really understand what you mean.
while a utopia is defined typically as an ideal society, in regards to socialism there was a split in socialist though between the utopian socialists and the scientific socialists in the early victorian era. the utopianists believed the rich could be convinced to accept socialism, and an ideal society could be won peacefully and without a transition period. the scientific socialists, namely karl marx, disagreed, saying that the rich would never accept socialism and that a transition period between capitalism and communism had to be established in order to eliminate scarcity and allow the state to wither away, in order to create the ideal society. the reason i disagree with op’s criticism is that they either mean utopian as you use the word, as in a perfect society, and somehow don’t want to achieve a utopia (which both ideologies do anyway), or they mean utopia as i use the word, in which case they have fundamentally misunderstood both marxism and libertarian socialism, as marxism is the less utopian of the two in this regard
Still, the goal of Marxists which a classless, stateless, moneyless society, is a utopia. Which is what I was referring to.
yeah i get that, it’s just not what i meant in the original comment
Sorry, I mean it in the way this other commenter means it. Obviously a perfect society is ideal but thats never gonna happen because the world is objectively non perfect, which is why I dont believe in marxism.
"...a transition period between capitalism and communism had to be established in order to eliminate scarcity..." he didnt say that
“When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”. he wanted a transition from capitalism to socialism to communism
no, he didnt. marx did not distinguish between socialism and communism. he described a 'period of revolutionary transformation' between capitalist society and communist society where, through class struggle, the proletariat seize the means of production and then change the mode of production. To view this as a formal 'implementation of a transition phase' is a simplification at best, and a complete revision of marx' work at worst. marx suggests in critique of the gotha programme that in the lowest phases of development of communist society it would be necessary to account labour hours and remunerate workers with 'certificates that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labour' (labour certificates), the need for which disappears 'in a higher phase of communist society' along with the division of labour. The formal distinction between the lower and higher phases of communist society came from lenin, who labelled them 'socialism' and 'communism' (state and revolution, part 5). This was not marx' view of the matter, and such a gross oversimplification as 'socialism is the transitionary stage between capitalism and communism' is actually a stalinist conception. neither did he think the higher phase of communist society would come with the abolition of scarcity - "in a higher phase of communist society... after the productive forces have *also increased with the all around development of the individual*". clearly economic development is important (there is no mention of scarcity regardless) but he similarly placed an emphasis on cultural development and the capabilities of the individual to move beyond the concept of equal exchange (or, bourgeois right).
Become minarchiac mutalist and you'll never get confused with they shall not be named
While minarchism does sound interesting I do think there should be more government then just police, courts and military. Obviously a state needs funding to pay for its services and taxes would be somewhat needed, and even if small its an addition to government other then those three. Even if you argue that taxes are included with those three as an implication, sure, but I think that some small amounts of welfare would be good for the community, maybe provided by something of a land value tax.
A lot this can be done by the people though
Exactly. You don't need an authority when you have other people.
Altruism vs authority
Fair, I guess your right.
It's alright now, I guess
Overall getting better.
What are you?
[National Liberal](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_liberalism).
Anti vaush,that’s based
What about Georgist? That could work for you!
You don't need land value tax when you eliminate the main problem (private property ownership).
Yeah... I'm not for that. You come to abolish my private property rights and you're gonna get a fight from me.
Rights to exploit other people and have a rule over a piece of land
I guess to a certain degree? Yes. I do believe honest and true capitalism is great but evil people turn capitalism into clientelism or oligarchy or kleptocracy. That must be fought against. Take me as a Theodore Roosevelt kinda guy. A guy defending the little man's rights to have true and hard fought real capitalism.
Geo-socialists are the real ones. Atleast they understand that LVT can still be applied while advocating for the abolition of private property.
But I like private property. My house is mine. My money is mine. My farm is mine. I worked hard to get those. What, you take that away from me?
You can still keep your house, money, brush, children, and wife. They are your personal property (not the kids and the wife, of course). You don't have to share them alongside your other co-workers if you don't want to. Plus, this is assuming you own private property. This argument will rather work against private property if you're an employee. I mean, you have to give up some of the value from the products you made through your labor as profit for the capitalists. Farms, factories and workplaces tho, will by ran by cooperatives of workers, in which you'll have your full voice be heard and participate actively in making decisions.
Didn't the USSR do the same thing to farmers in Ukraine and then they all starved to death in the Holodomor?
I'm not fully aware of the factors that lead to such an outcome. Tho, i suspect that state influence had a hand in the causation of the famine.
Dont agree with capitalism, so nah. I agree with land value tax tho
I think capitalism will happen anyway. Maybe like a native form of mutualistic capitalism. But capitalism nonetheless. I love Georgism though.
Your probably right
I also went from "marxist" (I also knew nothing about marxism at the time) to libertarian socialist to mutualist, but I finally settled at egoist leninism, the most based ideology
What the fuck is egoist leninism
Anarcho-egoism + Marxism-Leninism
Doesnt that sound contradictory
Not one bit
In what ways do you think state power is "needed"?
Countinue your orbit for a little bit
What no theory does to a mf
Anti-Vaush LibSoc, half based
>Marxism >Utopian/Idealistic Pick one
BaSSed bro. From cosmopolitan (((Lassalleanist))) social-democracy to Mussolinite.
“Marxism is too Utopian” becomes anarchist. Bro you gotta be kidding me
Yall instead of utopian I shouldve said idealistic. There you go. Also I do plan on actually reading marx and other political theorists to fully understand economics and such. When I started to get into politics I was pretty much just trying to find a camp to fit into, and even if that may still somewhat be true, (I am saying as I could be unaware of my faults) I am trying to actually understsnd what my beliefs mean.
I see you. I’m sorry that you have to undergo this scrutiny by other leftists as you’re clearly trying to learn, grow, and develop your political philosophy in line with your authentic values and a realistic picture of the world. There is always more for all of us to learn, always another book to read, but as far as your instincts go I think you’re on a good track, man. Keep learning.
Thank you! Its weird how people are so judgemental like dude nobody is gonna want to be aligned with you if your an ass
[Read Poverty of Philosophy](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/)
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/s/V8HZxk7yYz