Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
You talk about Marxism more than anybody here. On the other hand, I have repeatedly and vehemently denied that I agree with Marxist philosophy in it's entirety. He had some good ideas. Libertarian philosophy has it's roots in Libertarian socialism, but for an economic plan, it embraces anarchocapitalism, so I don't accuse Ron Paul of Marxism.
This would be like if I said everyone who thinks capitalism is a good idea automatically agrees with everything Ayn Rand says. Your motivation here is simply to discredit me out of fear. Your tactics are consistently dishonest and you appeal to popularity, but you don't realize that an idea is not true simply because it is popular. Why do you follow me around so much? Get a life you racist shill.
And Yes, you do hate all Muslims, it is obvious.
your previously cited reference material:
"Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] and sometimes left libertarianism)[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private productive property into the commons or public goods, while retaining respect for personal property.[5" ~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
first two sentences, followed by a whole shitload of garbage and contradictions. and neither you nor your "Scholarly Source Authority" actually demarcate the line where "private property" becomes "The Means of Production", nor how such "Means of Production" shall come into the possession of the "collective" without force, both simply assume that there will be no force. further, you go on to argue that it really is libertarian,, because of the non-statist nature of the non-state in it's non-stateness that still somehow manages to ensure that nobody gets too much control over the non-property held in common by the non-state without any actual state, or the threat of force to ensure the equitable division of the non-property and the production generated by the aforementioned "Means".
and then while searching for an actual coherent description of the principles of "libertarian socialism" i read this:
http://www.progress.org/2003/libsoc01.htm
even in this love letter to spoonerist socialist utopianism the author spends more time talking about what "libertarian socialism" is NOT than what it is. in fact,, just like the wikipage, the author provides only a hand waved in the general direction of anarchism as the grounding principles, and leaves the rest to the imagination of the (presumably, fervid 12 year old) reader.
much like yourself, all the "great thinkers" of "libertarian socialism" spend their time trying to explain that it's not an oxymoron (and failing), arguing how "in europe libertarianism is actually socialism", making convoluted semantic distinctions, avoiding the actual question of how the "Means of Production" fall into the hands of the "collective" how the "system" is supposed to work, and "once upon a time, in a kingdom far far away..."
libertarian socialism is a fantasy created by some utopianist dreamers and proto-communists which morphed into marxism which developed into the twin branches represented by leninism and stalinism.
it is NOT as you or wikipedia describe, it is a social studies abortion lost to the mists of time,, till it was resurrected by the new left as a replacement for the now tarnished ideals of marx and engles.
it's plain, old, ordinary, homely, tired, used up, unappealing, failed marxism in a fancy new party dress.
i know it hurts to hear it, but this is a kindness, now you can read Das kapital and the Communist Manifesto and hopefully understand them.