Oddbean new post about login | logout Dear socialists on #Nostr, Libertarians and socialists could actually live together without any trouble if it weren’t for socialists always resorting to tyranny and enforcing others into slavery to their system. There is nothing about socialism (commune living) as a chosen way to live that’s incompatible with freedom. It’s when you decide it’s ok to force your religion onto everyone else by pointing the state gun at everyone’s head, forcing them to pay for a system and people they don’t agree with, making them slaves. If people don’t agree with your system, leave them alone and live your own life, and you won’t start a war. 😁👍🏻 Cheers
So simple but yet they don't understand this... Or they are just evil and they benefit from socialism
To steelman a response, in a way no socialist I've met would ever enunciate because they are usually not thinking that hard: capitalism works great in a framework where the use of force is restrained by some other entity. But the first thing you'll do if someone threatens your family is run to the strongest most connected person you know. Similar to how a bitcoiner might say frequent small crashes are preferable to generational large crashes, a socialist might say that infrequent democratically-sanctioned government aggression is preferable to generational aggressions by the next stronger warlord. History does suggest a certain level of scale of aggression is necessary to prevent complete annihilation and subjugation. Why not try to harness the demon if you can't kill it?
The first thing I will do is take care of it myself
It's difficult, many communists (marxist) believe that for this to fully work, they must completely eliminate capitalism on a global level and export communism to the rest... they would never understand it in my opinion
Free helicopter rides for all commies.
I’m borrowing this from someone (was it Taleb?) But socialism <-> libertarianism is a sliding scale for me, depending on distance. I’m a total socialist when it comes to family, friends, neighbours. The further we go from there, the more libertarian I become.
there is a wonderful EconTalk Episode about that!
That's still stupid. I'm a total libertarian with my family because I love them and I don't want to control them. Love doesn't control - it liberates.
Wow how cool dude
Organizations of people under Dunbar Number (~150 or the size of tribes we evolved to live in) don’t need formal governance systems. A hierarchy and rules of the road will naturally evolve and conflicts can be resolved by splitting the group. We still haven’t figured out how to effectively manage masses of people. Anarco-capitalism appears to work, except that it has a large attack surface for leftist ideologies.
The problem is that socialists think your stuff is theirs. Your work belongs to the group. You cannot have socialism without an overarching leader controlling others and their property.
I agree with just about everything here, but I would have started this note with "Socialists," but that is just me. Agree with everything else!
They want the war. Talk to a socialist in a real heart to heart conversation. You will see - they aren't there for the nice ideas. Its envy that drives them. Their deepest desire is to destroy the best things.
The problem with socialism is that in order to survive, they must force good/services/labor from those members of society who are most productive. Socialism is by its own definition self-consuming... The productive members of society feel like they deserve more bread than unproductive members, so they stop working... In order to maintain control and reduce the starving of the population, punishment begins in order to extract value from the people to support the society. Capitalism has its own problems, like insane incentive structures (marketing, advertising, data collection), as well as things like companies pumping money out of the government. A good capitalism prevents monopolies and duopolies, unfair business practices, and protects consumers.
They will never allow us to prosper
If you're asking for permission (implicitly or explicitly) you're doing it wrong. Just prosper!
Its capitalists that create tyranny. How many workplaces are democratic? Capitalism is a religion forced on most of the world.
Most workers wouldn't have a clue how to operate a business and if voting was the way decisions were made the business would surely fail.
OK, thats fine, if you oppose democracy. Maybe you are right. BUT its still tyranny.
This is about the fattest brushstroke on the internet.
Then go build that democratic company from the ground up with your commie scum friends. I'll wait.
This one doesn’t know how to. Slaver through to their core. You just mute people who can’t see a path for life without subjugating someone else. They are simply horrible people.
I am not the one calling someone commie scum and shouting fuck off, just for challenging the logic of your post, which ironically proves the point. Capitalists cant engage with anyone who disagrees with them. They hate democracy and free speech. Thats why workplaces don't have either.
Facebook, Twitter Google - all of them run by greedy capitalists, all of them suppress free speech and democracy. But sure blame bogey man communists that don't even exist. And when that fails pretend its corporatism - as if that is any differnt - capitalists (as marx said) have always used the power of the state to keep their wealth. And I believe there are no examples of a capitalist that does not, anywhere on earth, but feel free to give me one.
You are rude. You can't seem engage in civilized discussion. As I said capitalists are tyrannical. .
Communists don't deserve civility. Communism is evil. If anyone openly claims they have the right to steal from me and destroy my society then they can go get fucked. Defending what I own will never be tyranny. Tyranny is having a mob of lazy retards steal from and murder productive people. But keep crying loser.
There will always be power imbalances in a large society. Centralized systems = increasingly imbalance power Decentralized = individual potential for rebalancing Workplaces are not democratic (right - they're not designed to be democratic). It doesn't follow that capitalism creates tyranny. Unfortunately, capitalism often devolves into corporatism (this has happened very clearly in the US), which is highly centralized, whereas socialism in a large society begins with centralization.
100%, I'll also add that we don't have true capitalism in the US because we have companies that are "too big to fail" and too many heavily subsidized industries.
yes, exactly once the govt starts subsidizing and protecting particular sectors or companies, you've left the free market
Capitalism just means you try to build capital. Capital is anything useful. There's a lot of wiggle room to design different systems on top of the idea of capitalism. Clear definitions are good for clear thinking.
Why don’t you try a democratic company with your own funds and resources that you own and just see how it goes? Nobody is stopping anyone from doing that. 🤷🏻♂️
Someone tried that around my way. It was run as a 'cooperative'. Everyone made the decisions in a group. Eventually, the business folded. There are other reasons, but in the long run it came down to too few people doing all the work and getting fed up with it as they realised they should be rewarded more than those who did near nothing. It was a vegan takeaway, btw. Obviously.
Shocking /s 😆
Valve has a democratic horizontal structure, its doing very well. I'd also argue they produced some of the best games ever made. However they are run on deeply capitalist principles and that makes them exploit their users (as has been laid out in numerous articles by many people). The problem isn't democracy (or even the lack of it) so much as capitalism, which encourages tyranny because being tyrannical is profitable - and its the same argument pro capitalists used against so called socialist leaders - they become corrupted by money. But so do capitalists, which is why nobody can name a large high value corporation that does not behave tyrannical.
I said capitalism is tyrannical. Starting my own capitalist company would not disprove this, however democratic it was.
I think a good way to think about this is to turn it around. Whatever your job is - operating a machine, handling a certain kind of documents, etc. - do you think it could be done better through democracy within the company than by yourself? You who obviously have the education and/or talent for it, since you were hired, and the first-hand experience of doing it for however long you've been doing it. Probably not. And just the time it would take to vote on every button to push, every word to write, etc. would slow things down considerably. The same goes for the people deciding. That's their job, and if they don't do it properly, they, just like you, risk not getting a raise, getting a pay cut, or being fired. Only not by a superior in the company, but by the market. @TheGuySwann This reply might interest you too, tagged you in case you don't get notified otherwise.
I never said democracy was a good idea. I just pointed out that without it you have usually get tyranny. And that (from a societal point of view) is worse. But throw in Capitalism and that ususally becomes guaranteed. Name a large high value corporation that isn't tyrannical.
True, there probably are few to none. However the tried alternatives have been worse (see the Soviet union or East Germany). I don't know if there is a solution that's actually good. Some think that in a perfectly free market, corporations wouldn't grow to such sizes, but I doubt that's correct.
Did apple force you to buy an iPhone with a gun to your head? No? Fuck off.
What does that have to do with the price of fish?
You either buy google or apple. Little choice, and nobody (and I mean NOBODY ) agrees with all their terms and conditions ie nobody thinks they are good, fair and reasonable - they have no choice if they want a mobile phone. And other companies just can't compete with their nefarious monopoly, and where they try most can't afford to buy.
I think it all boils down to the well-intended but naive socialist impulse that it would be an inherently good thing for a society to enforce material 'equality'... they just don't seem to see the word 'force' is hidden right there in plain sight.
I have no problem with libertarians, just capitalist libertarians. Anarchists are the true libertarians, they don't force people into slavery neither do they impose their socialism on others. Capitalism always leads to power imbalances which leads quickly to tyranny.
Yes!! I think some of these conversations tend to leave out scale. Communism within a family? that can work beautifully; may even be the natural state of a family. Socialism in a small tribe or commune. Lovely, especially if folks can leave freely Either of those for a nation of hundreds of millions? disaster
Scale, yes. Socialism/Communism are, in some ways, natural forms of human association....ON A SMALL SCALE. These methods of organizing people can't scale (morally) across the myriad belief systems held by humans.
yes, exactly small scale and voluntary
You want socialism move to a country that has already taken the liberties of its citizens.
Yes. Socialism could work if it were voluntary and people weren't mooches. Back in the 1800's The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) experimented with a voluntary form of it called "The United Order" In a 1966 speech from one of the old LDS church presidents, he points out the key differences between The United Order and Communism/Socialism. 1. The United Order is 100% voluntary. 2. You can leave the United Order at any time. 3. You only donate your excess to the United Order, instead of everything being taken from you, like in communism. 4. You own private property in the United Order, unlike communism, which seeks to abolish private property (and seeks to abolish other forms of perceived "capital" such as earned standing, status and earned glory) 4. The United Order is under God's laws, not man's laws. (Being voluntary is evidence of this) Here's the speach: https://latterdayconservative.com/articles/is-socialism-the-united-order/
Interesting.
100%, little "s" socialism can be an amazing lifestyle for a group of people who voluntarily live that association. It's that whole forcing others to do what you say, definitely one of the roots of evil.
Collectivism isn't socialism. Combining voluntarily with others is not socialism. Socialism involves believing nobody has rights to their own product, labor, money, trade, skills, and so on. Huge difference
I think the problem is constant conflation by the people who actually support it. Language on all sides is constantly co-opted and made vague and confusing.
It's not hard to understand if it's voluntary. Your rights end where mine begin. It's ths difference between dependence and interdependence.
Reminds me of company towns or token towns the mining companies built for the employees some of these towns had plumbing first of its time so families were eager to move in..
Something that strikes me about these examples: monopoly capitalism is by no means opposed to socialist or unitarian political principles. Many of the richest capitalist were supportive of Communism. A book was written about the bulshevik connections to wall street but it's name escapes me. Anyway, the point is that the communust bureaucrat and mega corp CEO have something in common: they both want to extend and crystalize their monopoly position and both are willing to use violence via state action to do so.
It's aways been interesting to me that while most socialists would not describe themselves as creationists or believers in intelligent design, when it comes to the economy - an incalculable sum of the interactions of people across the globe- they kick evolution to the curb and go right to government as the creator of all things.
I am free. I do what I want. I am anti-social. Not shy, Just not interested in socialising. I get free stuff from my neighbours. I did not ask for it. They get free stuff from me. They did not ask it from me either. If I have surplus, I share. This is not socialism, communism or capitalism. It is simply one self sovereign individual interacting with another. Love thy neighbour as you love yourself. This sums up the law and the prophets. Good fences make for good neighbours. I love my privacy, so I respect his. Minding my own business.
I accidently reposted this, I fundamentally think this is the most retarded and derranged thing I ever read. Socialism is an evil ideology that has killed millions of people. libertarianism has killed NO ONE, its ineffective and thats GOOD. Fuck you if you're a socialist nostr:nevent1qqsza8q2kk2dsngpt3dazsffrrxyh7kurwqtypycuhdvpaj7nl88upspzamhxue69uhky6t5vdhkjmn9wgh8xmmrd9skctczyzu7we2xhgry2mknq8v7227yn7jguu9xhu3g90n6rtnjj3mpyq3acv9sd2x
The "smart" socialist knows he would problably starve to death witouth making slaves to feed their system. They know it is an impossible big lie, and use it to manipulate and control others, profiting from it. Live in total hipocrisy is not a problem for these people. They are predators disguised as sheeps.
Nah. Socialists are evil
Was listening to "5 Reasons Why You Cannot 'Just Be a Good Person'" By Safina Society Heres the link for anyone who wants to listen to the whole thing: https://youtu.be/i0Lt9t4MveU?si=DCVShx31t5CsGSNC And it lays out plainly why all these man made ways of ruling end up resulting in tyranny. "...anything that you say is purely subjective it's your opinion, and if it's your opinion you can't make law on it, and if you do you're just imposing your law on me. Monarchy is the imposition of the subjective values of a minority on a majority. Democracy is the imposition of the subjective values of a majority on the minority. Democracy is the lesser of two evils. In the absence of a revealed law, democracy is the lesser of two evils, it's still the imposition of the majority's view on the minority. The only one who can give us an absolute answer to what to do with ourselves is our owner. Did you create your body or did you buy it? No, neither one therefore you don't own it. We say my body it's an attribution only, it's not actual ownership." - Shadee Elmasry
BINGO!!!
Socialism purpose is 4 pUblic Utilies, but n0t applicable 2 individuals & private property rights. It led 2 c0llapse of USSR. The gl0balist$ want 2 create United States of #Socialism USS. #Libertarian purpose is 2 enforce American Bill 0f Rigjts 2 patriotic Americans but not 2 enforce that rights 2 f*cking c0rp0rate$ & machine$. The gl0balist$ want 2 tran$fer Bill 0f Rigjts 2 0rp0rate$ & machine$. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zq-2cKENOc
Very good points. These, and the follow-up points, didn't fully click for me before I read the Free Private Cities book. It lays out a clear, practical way for ending these kinds of "group A vs. group B" fights - there shouldn't be a "one size fits all" solution because there can't be one. We need many different kinds of solutions, and if the socialists want their paradise, they too can have one! In fact, they can have as many as they need to find the magic formula that won't fail like the 100+ previous socialist experiments. Just don't force me to live in any of those experiments. https://free-cities.org/free-private-cities-third-edition/
This is a good analysis but as you explained to yourself in the note: it isn't about the communalism or sharing or whatever the hell they market it with. It is weaponized envy by a ruling class to institute a totalitarian political system. A system with which to enslave a population. Happens everywhere it was tried in tight correlation to the degree it was implemented. As others have quoted: "the purpose of a system is what it does"
#truth
Which is all well and good until we start talking about energy production and regulation
I think you possibly have a very naive impression that energy production and regulation isn’t totally controlled by the very people it’s advertised as “keeping under control.” Read about Bootleggers and Baptists, and then remember that to make sure you don’t become a Baptist.
you have a really weird habit of reading into what people say. i didn't say a single thing about who controls energy production and regulation...?
Then I don’t understand what your comment was referencing. I assumed the context was about needing state control, and you were giving an example of where it was necessary. Maybe expand on the context of what you mean, because I still can’t come up with anything else.
All I said is that when you have socialists and libertarians, trying to agree on how to do energy production and regulation, there's going to be conflict. the rest was all you.
Well I was just answering what I thought you were addressing in the absence of a direct explanation. I clearly misunderstood, but it’s nothing to get bothered about. Also you should still check out bootleggers and baptists if you haven’t before. It’s the most important framing for political incentives, imo.
its hard enough to have conversations online speaking to "oh what you're really saying is" is not generally useful or productive
lol, dude you gave no explicit context and as you said, its hard to understand what someone means in text sometimes. If you gave no explicit context then my only means is to assume which part of my post you are responding too. but now you've spent 3 additional comments just complaining about it. Don't know what has you so fixated on this but hope you have a good day anyway. Later
We have a word for a voluntary socialist system, it’s called a co-operative. All socialists are welcome to form a cooperative and enjoy their lot. No one is stopping them. Just leave the rest of us alone!
