It was back in the day of French Revolutions.
Left of the king and Right of the king

One wanted change, the other wanted to keep going with the same thing

That was how they were seated.

This is a retarded way to categorize ideologies

because it means literally anything you dont have is left wing.

Well, who would have thought it would carry on til 2020.

When anarchocapitalism is left wing you have a fuckin problem

with the way ideologies are categorized

THE VOICES TELL ME THAT ANCAPS ARE RIGHT-WING

<:angrypepe:497157904743268363>

MUH NAZIS ARE RIGHT WING

why

MUH FASCISM

Nowadays i just consider economic ideas, when it comes to Left-Right.

fascism is just honest socialism

Both capitalists and communists can be authoritarian or libertarian.

communists can't by definition be authoritarian

>Authoritarian Capitalism

*BRUH*

Yeah man.

socialists can though

Speaking of Libertarian Communism....

Authoritarian implies the existence of a state

Ancoms.

communism literally gets rid of the state

@BabaBooey's a Libertarian Socialist

Ancoms are retarded

because its redundant

Well, don't thell them that.

Also because they're communists

Anarchists are retarded, but AnComs are probably the 2nd-dumbest version

Ancoms are mostly, small community dudes.

Ancoms are dumber than regular anarchists

Because its redundant.

AnarchoPacifism is the worst tbh

wtf is the point of AnPacs?

Its like saying you're an authoritarian fascist

its redundant

Communism is a system in which the state does not exist, adding the label of anarchist onto it is stupid.

Fascism is a system in which its all the state, so adding authoritarian onto it is also stupid.

Communism's ultmate goal is the lack of state, but never seems to be able to reach that position.

Because other states exist.

You can't have an anarchic state with neighboring nation states, they'll fuck your shit up.

You can't have an anarchic state period

Well yeah

Other than that, you have to transition your economy.
How are you going to redistribute the means of production without a state?

Well you see this all makes sense if you consider one thing

marx is a fucking idiot.

And a state with that kind of power, how are you going to make it dissapear?

He literally never said.

He just said that it would

because he's a fucking idiot.

It's dumb shit.

Marxism only described there would be a revolution

A constant revolution.

Not that there should be

Marx said the socialist state would redistribute wealth then wither away because it became unnecessary.

but that's

not how states work

or wealth

or anything

A state always works to make itself bigger than before, that's how it works.

Fascism is literally honest socialism

They hit the point where they're redistributing wealth and say

hold on

we have all this power

we were supposed to get rid of it right?
lmao fuck that

and then they just keep going.

I don't know about that, I've been thinking about that for sometime. I don't think we can position Fascism between Socalism and Capitalism.

No, you can't

its socialism 2.0

literally

It's a third position.

It was made by a socialist to fix the problems inherent in socialism.
It did not succeed.

Fascism is a collectivist nationalist ideology, and it's very socialist, but socialism is not its core idea

It just so happens that collectivist ideologies must be more socialist than capitalist by their nature

Yeah, but they don't really redistribute the means of porduction.

They just central plan it for "The greater good"

because you can't 'redistribute' the means of production

Yeah, fascism allows for some capitalism

you literally cannot

It's a third position.

its fucking meaningless as a statement.

Actually think about what that means, redistributing the means of production, and try to imagine how it would work.

There are two basic things that define socialism:
1) Redistribute wealth
2) Collectivize the means of production

Same with collectivizing it.

https://www.politiscales.net/en_US/results/?e0=24&e1=48&c0=19&c1=55&p1=69&p0=10&s1=69&s0=10&j1=36&j0=33&femi=14&b0=7&b1=86&m1=55&m0=10&t1=40&t0=24&reli=67&prag=67

The only way you can do it is to make them part of the state

which is fascism.

Collectivizing is one way of saying "state owned"

That's not collective ownership.

Collectivizing the means of production is not fascism, no

No no no see

Shabang

You *cant* collectivize the means of production.

It doesn't fucking work

Sure you can, you just do it, you use force to do it

Like actually imagine what a factory owned by the entire society would look like

No, you really can't. You can make them state owned, but that means the state owns it, not the population.

How would that function

Collectivizing the means of production doesn't mean the whole society owns the factories

>Even more of a Nationalist, Conservative, and Revolutionary than me

OOF

But that's the intention, that they be used for the collective good.

The point is that its all rhetoric because anarchy is stupid

Revolutionary National Conservatism @Brigade?

But state owned it's not really that, it's for the good of the state.

and it just turns into state owned.

Which is fascism.

It means that the private individual does not own the factories, meaning an individual can only be *allowed to run* a factory, but it can't own it while running it

Yeah but what if you're running it and someone else wants to run it

one of the several million other people in the country

That's one of the problems, yes

and who pays for it

the maintenance

the materials

Practically speaking it doesn't work

The Soviet Union failed because of this exact problem, because you failed upwards

Being truthful was not smart, because it would get you punished. So you lied. And by lying you are a failure, because no one knows how much to produce, or how much you produced.

So incompetence got rewarded

well also they had a shitload of management positions that did literally nothing all day

Yep

Central planned economy is just a nightmare, you can't really do it.

Because if everyone owns something then what the fuck is the point of a manager

You get into so much problem trying to plan a nation level economy.

Well, the manager is there so someone can get punished if things go wrong

collective ownership also just

goes against human nature

So under communism your goal was to not get punished, not to produce optimally

like, if you don't own something why do you give a shit what happens to it

Two people cannot control the same item at the same time

^

You get ineffective resource management, no price to rule by, corruption.

It's a shit hole.

The other issue of redistribution of wealth

Firstly

the problem of scale.

Redistribution of wealth is the less dysfunctional part of socialism

At the end of the day if you take that 99% of the money in 1% of the populations hands and divide it among the other 99% of the population the actual amount of money they get is fuck all.

I did the math on Bill Gates and it was like 1,000 dollars per person

That's minimum wage's monthly income.

collectivization doesn't necessarily = state ownership

Yeah, and also another things

That and 99% of their shit is physical property

which costs too much to be divided

And lastly

It’s a one time deal also

Money has to be concentrated to actually be worth anything.

Nothing in the socialist definition says that wealth must be redistributed to the less fortunate

If i own an office building that's worth a lot

It can go to the wealthy instead

I can do a lot with an office building

if I own one fuckin square foot of an office building

its completely useless.

and also a beurocratic nightmare to even use the building now.

what is this supposed to be analogous to

Yeah idk either, this can also happen under capitalism

Its supposed to be literal.
The building is owned by someone.
You redistribute the wealth of that person including the building.

Also there’s the matter of investment versus consumption spending. The rich would invest more than poor people with the Rich’s resources.

How.

The building costs too much to give it all to one person

its also not useful if you don't own a big chunk of it.

Whatever is owned doesn't neccessarily have to be used

Socialism or capitalism doesn't matter in that regard

You can't sell it to anyone, because nobody can afford to buy the entire thing because you redistributed all the fucking wealth

if you're talking about socialism then it would just be collectively owned?

Furthermore redistributing the wealth is fucking retarded anyway, because even if you did somehow snap your fingers and do it, 0.05 seconds later someone would buy something and wealth would be uneven.

June collective ownership doesn't work beyond like 3-4 people.

i mean what do you mean by work

You have to give it to the state at that point

which isn't the same

no you don't

Redistribution of wealth doesn't mean equal wealth

Depends on what you mean by collective ownership

If you have a car, and 100 people own it, try to use the car.

I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of socialism

there are cooperative businesses with literally millions of employees

that's a lot more than 3 or 4

Socialism is supposed to plug all the holes basically so no one has to suffer, that's the theory at least

It's not supposed to make everyone equal

So do they pay a fee when they join the company to buy part of it

How the fuck does everyone owning everything in the entire company work
Someone bought the equipment.

someone handles the money and signs paychecks

It doesn't need to be owned by everyone, how often do I have to explain that

Socialism doesn't say anything about equality

Then who is the 'collective'

yeah usually the owners vote on the managerial staff

The goal of socialism is to establish communism

a system in which everyone is equal

and delegate managerial duties to them

not necessarily

No, not everyone is equal under communism

you're speaking of marxism specifically

In a system with no property, no government, and no money

From each according to their ability to each according to their needs - that's not a matter of equality, nothing in there says that

Socialism and Communism sound like Hinduism but lame and no market economy.

well socialism doesn't mean there can't be a market economy

I bet if you asked Marx right now, he'd probably scoff at the idea of equality

depending on how it's defined at least

"From each according to their ability to each according to their needs" is advocating for equality of outcome dude

No it isn't

Not really

the relationship between marx and egalitarianism is a complicated one

If one produces more, and the other needs more, the extra the one produced goes to the other

it makes no mention of any exchange

it just goes.

It’s more the anarchists that are strictly egalitarian.

No, it's says Each according to their ability.

FROM each

>From each according to their ability
But also
>To each according to their needs

Your needs determine what you gain, you're not supposed to get more than you need

yeah

Everyone has what they *need*

and nothing more.

No, that's wrong

That's central planning

Ie if I had cancer a doctor would give me treatment because the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth has been established

You literally just said "You are not supposed to get more than you need"

You're not supposed to get more than you need by means of socialism, but you can enrich yourself further beyond your needs

Granted they do anyway because marxism is retarded

AFTER all people's needs are met

There is what is SUPPOSED to happen and what ACTUALLY happens in the case of these... systems.

If everyone's needs are met, you can enrich yourself. The true problem of communism lies beyond this idea. It's not about equality.

If this was a product it would sound exactly like a pyramid scheme.

Jack, I know the realistic problems of communism, but we're talking about the theory

For reference we're talking about equality of outcome yes

In theory, equality doesn't matter in communism

Commies believe that moral faults will fade away when capitalism is abolished. Society is then supposed to be purely altruistic.

which its not

Not necessarily equal.

You gotta at least acknowledge the theory first, because you would want the same courtesy from others about your own ideas

Then you can go into the realizability

Marx was actually a lot less radical than today's AntiFa type

Communism is less radical than the idea of strict equality

it's less equality of outcome and more the unconditional sating of material wants and needs predicated on hyperabundance

Really? The Constant revolution guy is less radical?

Sadly, yes

Man.

Marx only predicted the revolution, he didn't say there has to be a revolution

And he predicted wrongly

There will be no revolution, at least not for the reasons he thought

Heres my results lol

How'd I do lads?

You are a commie

17%

Yeah that ratio is very clear, get a helicopter

Look at all these fucking essentialists

Man, you also have more commie than me