Libertarian Socialism?

[Martin Hash]

When I first started hearing the term "Libertarian Socialism," I thought it a staggering oxymoron because the two ideologies diametrically oppose each other, but now I understand what's going on...

As usual, when something doesn't make sense, it's usually nonsense. In the case of "Libertarian Socialism," it's a term intentionally adopted by Noam Chomsky to sow confusion. To name your enemy is the first step in defeating it; Noam Chomsky is the undisputed expert in using linguistics to twist political narratives into something I call an "oral illusion." He knows the battle is between socialism & liberty, so he throws up linguistic conundrums to blur the distinction, and people who are not paying attention can be easily caught up in the web of NewSpeak, allowing socialism to creep into the public subconscious through subterfuge & torture of the language.

[Speaker to Animals]

Socialism in the sense of open source, not state control.

[Martin Hash]

Socialism in the sense of open source, not state control.

???

Socialism as in: the needs of the group come before the wants of the individual.

[Fife]

Fuck the group.

I'll join groups I want to join.

[Speaker to Animals]

Socialism in the sense of open source, not state control.

???

Socialism as in: the needs of the group come before the wants of the individual.

No. Socialism as in social ownership of a means of production.

State socialists accomplish this through government theft of capital goods (like taking over a factory). Libertarian socialists are about free association creating new means of production that is free for anybody to use for production (free as in free speech, not free as in beer).

Where I disagree with them lies in the fact that somebody still needs to manage the thing. Even in open source software, somebody in particular controls the project. Anybody can use Java to develop commercial software without paying a dime to use the language or IDE, but somebody owns/controls both the language and IDE.

This only works when the people controlling the maintenance and development of those projects can profit from their labor. Sun Microsystems died because they couldn't make a profit with projects like Java. Now Oracle controls it, along with other projects. I don't see how they make it worth their time and resources.

Imagine how untenable this would be for an actual factory.

[Martin Hash]

Socialism in the sense of open source, not state control.

???

Socialism as in: the needs of the group come before the wants of the individual.

No. Socialism as in social ownership of a means of production.

State socialists accomplish this through government theft of capital goods (like taking over a factory). Libertarian socialists are about free association creating new means of production that is free for anybody to use for production (free as in free speech, not free as in beer).

Where I disagree with them lies in the fact that somebody still needs to manage the thing. Even in open source software, somebody in particular controls the project. Anybody can use Java to develop commercial software without paying a dime to use the language or IDE, but somebody owns/controls both the language and IDE.

This only works when the people controlling the maintenance and development of those projects can profit from their labor. Sun Microsystems died because they couldn't make a profit with projects like Java. Now Oracle controls it, along with other projects. I don't see how they make it worth their time and resources.

Imagine how untenable this would be for an actual factory.

Dude, you argue your ideology, I'll argue mine. Language is the weapon of sophists, which is what the OP is about. By not having a clear term for group vs individual, you cannot identify the enemy.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Socialism in the sense of open source, not state control.

???

Socialism as in: the needs of the group come before the wants of the individual.

No. Socialism as in social ownership of a means of production.

State socialists accomplish this through government theft of capital goods (like taking over a factory). Libertarian socialists are about free association creating new means of production that is free for anybody to use for production (free as in free speech, not free as in beer).

Where I disagree with them lies in the fact that somebody still needs to manage the thing. Even in open source software, somebody in particular controls the project. Anybody can use Java to develop commercial software without paying a dime to use the language or IDE, but somebody owns/controls both the language and IDE.

This only works when the people controlling the maintenance and development of those projects can profit from their labor. Sun Microsystems died because they couldn't make a profit with projects like Java. Now Oracle controls it, along with other projects. I don't see how they make it worth their time and resources.

Imagine how untenable this would be for an actual factory.

Wikipedia does not have an ownership, other than the guys that route donations to pay for server space. It's controlled by everyone. There is no central authority. Same for Bitcoin, same for Unix, and a lot of things.

Open Source won't work where there's wage slavery involved, but it could, once the robots are our slaves.

[Speaker to Animals]

???

Socialism as in: the needs of the group come before the wants of the individual.

No. Socialism as in social ownership of a means of production.

State socialists accomplish this through government theft of capital goods (like taking over a factory). Libertarian socialists are about free association creating new means of production that is free for anybody to use for production (free as in free speech, not free as in beer).

Where I disagree with them lies in the fact that somebody still needs to manage the thing. Even in open source software, somebody in particular controls the project. Anybody can use Java to develop commercial software without paying a dime to use the language or IDE, but somebody owns/controls both the language and IDE.

This only works when the people controlling the maintenance and development of those projects can profit from their labor. Sun Microsystems died because they couldn't make a profit with projects like Java. Now Oracle controls it, along with other projects. I don't see how they make it worth their time and resources.

Imagine how untenable this would be for an actual factory.

Dude, you argue your ideology, I'll argue mine. Language is the weapon of sophists, which is what the OP is about. By not having a clear term for group vs individual, you cannot identify the enemy.

It's not my ideology. I guess you didn't even bother to read it.

[Martin Hash]

It's not my ideology. I guess you didn't even bother to read it.

Trying to put people on the defensive is also sophistry, and you do it all the time. Stop it.

[Speaker to Animals]

It's not my ideology. I guess you didn't even bother to read it.

Trying to put people on the defensive is also sophistry, and you do it all the time. Stop it.

What the fuck are you talking about??