/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

> not wanting to keep the Not SocialIsm word filter

Communism vs capitalism png
(59.49 KB, 1200x600)

There will be no word filters.

I am not the old admin from 8chan.

Enjoy your stay. Don't be afraid to pitch ideas.

1417830470524-0 jpg
(281.94 KB, 1000x600)

 >>/12/
Forgot to log in. Anyway yes this is the new board owner.

This is your friend, he fights for freedom!

 >>/8/
And no there won't be any censorship just because an opinion is unpopular

1437442771... jpg
(13.85 KB, 191x300)

 >>/14/
Based board owner.

Commisar corgi png
(160.29 KB, 511x486)

 >>/18/
TOGETHER WE CAN REBUILD!

 >>/14/
But what if the majority says otherwise? Wouldn't that be anti-democratic?

 >>/32/
Censorship itself is kind of a characteristic of most totalitarian regimes.

 >>/33/
What if there's a consensus that there should be a totalitarian state?

1441499481272 jpg
(38.16 KB, 720x483)

 >>/38/
Well there's always the "tyranny of the majority" thing, you're right. I'm going to take the road that maximizes freedom and minimizes constraints. When it comes to things that don't affect other anons then that's what we can hold direct democratic consensus for. Is that fine?

It's always been my opinion that paternalism is patronizing and in most cases the means of an authority figure to take a power trip. However I don't consider it "forcing" people to be free but rather choosing not to intervene with them. I feel the same way about imageboards. So I won't censor others' free speech even if there's a majority consensus they should be censored.

Fuck you. Word filters produced tons of kek worthy butthurt from reactionaries and SJWs. No one but them would have a problem with it.

 >>/254/
But the point of this board is debate and introspection of leftism, word filters would just be a form of censorship here. It might be funny on a clearly ironic/shitposting board, but here it's important to understand what they're saying. That's not to say everything here is serious business, but their words should be taken at their own value.
> No one but them would have a problem with it
I hope you don't actually mean that. Come on.

 >>/12/

Chomsky follows Marx in opposing the private ownership of the means of production, which he believes permits "elite groups" to :"command resources, based ultimately on their control of the private economy," and ends up excluding the public from "basic decisions concerning production and work."3

Let's stop right there. What he means is hard capital: machines, buildings and so on. One would think that if private persons and business concerns cannot own these things, the state will do so. We call that state socialism. Chomsky apparently is against that too.

So, if the state isn't going to own income-producing property, and private concerns are not going to own it, who is going to own it?  Apparently, and this all very fuzzy, the means of production will somehow be collectively owned by the workers themselves, wherein we arrive at the silly concept of anarcho-syndicalism. Instead of greedy capitalists owning the corporation, the workers themselves will own it. But it will not be ownership in the form of individual shares that can be sold. That's capitalism.

No, he favors a vague and ill-defined form of collective ownership that the workers will figure out as they bumble and stumble along towards bankruptcy. As Mises writes in Socialism, "as an aim, Syndicalism is so absurd, that speaking generally, it has not found any advocates who dared to write openly and clearly in its favor."

Details aside, imagine how this syndicalism idea would have worked out recently in America. Let's say the workers had the privilege of owning Enron. Giddy syndicalists seem to view ownership of business concerns as always and everywhere a good thing.

But ownership also implies risk and liability, liability for debts and lawsuits. After Enron collapsed into a pile of incomprehensible derivatives, how many workers there wished they co-owned Enron?  Under current law, employers are responsible for the torts and contract breaches of employees. How many workers would want to bear that risk?  

https://mises.org/library/chomskys-economics

 >>/12/

Furthermore, an anarcho-syndicalist legal order, stateless or not, would obliterate the intertemporal division of labor and reduce mankind to squalor.

Improved productivity depends on capital goods, which in turn depend on delayed consumption.[5] People who choose to delay consumption extensively can come to own a stock of capital goods beyond what they can physically use themselves. If such people cannot hire labor to work with those goods without thereby losing title, they will consume their capital and stop saving.

A left-libertarian I recently debated responded to this point by asking how a factory could be "consumed." I explained to him that except for particular cases, such as seed corn, capital consumption is not generally the literal eating of capital goods. Capital consumption is the failure to direct enough materials away from consumption in order to maintain the capital goods. A factory is consumed when it is allowed to fall into complete disrepair, converted to less-productive processes (like a simple process that could be handled by the owner alone), or broken down and sold in parts or for scrap.

Another left-libertarian then chimed in, saying that the workers in such a factory could then simply take over the factory, rather than let it go to waste.

I pointed out that, yes, workers could take control of the factory. But the classical-liberal legal order doesn't prevent cooperatives, so if they were so good at running their own factory enterprise, why could not those same workers form a cooperative and pool their wages or borrow money to create or buy their own factory in the first place? If it is because the "absentee-owned" factory was run more competently in light of ultimate consumer evaluation, and thus they would not have been able to compete, then this new turn of affairs will only be to the detriment of the general public.

The entrepreneurial judgment and capitalist providence of any and all would-be employers whose qualities happen not to be best suited for worker-owned enterprises would be underutilized. And the judgment and providence of any and all would-be employers whose qualities happen not to be at all suited for worker-owned enterprises would be completely unutilized. Because nature spreads her gifts un-uniformly, virtually all would-be employers would fit one of those two categories.

Collaborative production (the division of labor) is so bountiful because it allows people to specialize: to focus on what they are good at and then exchange with each other. Perhaps in a handful of occasions, the people who are best at supporting and directing an enterprise are the same people who are best at operating the equipment. But because of human and natural diversity, that will virtually never be the case. By confining human interaction such that the direction and support of an enterprise can only ever be done by those operating the equipment, anarcho-syndicalists would be precluding innumerable mutually advantageous exchanges between savers and workers.

A capitalist/worker arrangement is effectively an intertemporal exchange. Workers are advanced present money in exchange for enabling the capitalist to own and sell a future product. Abolishing wages would therefore be injurious to both would-be consenting parties.

https://mises.org/library/anarcho-syndicalism-recipe-ruin

Don't forget to read  >>/281/ if you haven't already.

 >>/282/
 >>/281/
These arguments only somewhat hold for present day productive technology. Near future technology can suddenly make it practical for a majority of people to live in small independent communities. Modern economy-of-scale-based capitalism on steroids may collapse then.

 >>/296/


As capital itself becomes increasingly self-sufficient, self-organizing, and autonomous, feeble ape creatures will become a liability to be dispensed with.