Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[seven-deuce]

In the socialist model, you wouldn't use your brains or your elbow grease to make your life better because the idea of "yours" isn't compatible with the ideology. Instead, you would only use your brains or elbow grease if the community decided it's better for everybody.

"Many libertarian socialists argue that large-scale voluntary associations should manage industrial manufacture, while workers retain rights to the individual products of their labor.[44]" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

What do pro-capitalists think of these ideologies?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

Professor Noam chomsky has some interesting videos on YT as well regarding Anarchism and Capitalism.

[wufwugy]

"Many libertarian socialists argue that large-scale voluntary associations should manage industrial manufacture, while workers retain rights to the individual products of their labor.[44]" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

What do pro-capitalists think of these ideologies?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

Professor Noam chomsky has some interesting videos on YT as well regarding Anarchism and Capitalism.

I think it's a lot of poor usage of words. Basically the main thing going on is people redefining socialism so it's more like capitalism, but doing so without acknowledging why that doesn't work.

Capitalism and socialism are opposites. A phrase like "libertarian socialism" is an eyebrow raising oxymoron. Reading the wiki, this doesn't look any different than communism. It may say it respects things like private property, but the details say otherwise. The definitions are contradictions like when it says "non-bureaucratic society without private property in the means of production". Um, no. Did this just say means of production can be private without a bureaucracy? I'm not sure whoever wrote this knows what these words mean.

Regardless, every modern state in existence today operates on the paradigm of private property with the ability for the government to tax to provide services for the welfare of its citizens. The socialist examples all failed. I don't see any way for socialist ideology to squeeze its way into this, because it's a diametrically opposed system. In capitalism, there's "yours" and the government takes some of it for the "everybody", but in socialism, there's "everybody's" already, so the government has no role but to keep everything has everybody's. This is really cart before the horse because it doesn't acknowledge we're all individuals first and we all truly do have what is considered "ours" and that must be adhered to in order to make a functioning system

I don't feel like I explained this that well. It is very abstract

Regardless, the take home point is socialist ideology failed every single test its had, capitalist-welfarist ideology has succeeded in virtually every region its taken hold, and trying to merge the antipodal ideologies of capitalism and socialism seems an impossible task. This is one reason I often point out that what many people call socialism is capitalism-welfarism. The current populous dichotomy is some kind of crony capitalism (called regular capitalism) vs welfarism (called socialism), and this makes people misconstrue what's really going on. We can have everything we need with capitalism and welfarism together. Socialism isn't a part of the equation