Because that same hopelessness adheres to US capitalism. I care more about destroying the system from within.

a social capitalist with libertarian socialist views.

Are Libertarian Socialists the Same as Anarchists?

An anarchist by definition stands against all authority without exception, while a socialist by definition is simply someone who feels the means of production should be collectively owned. So, socialism is narrowly focused on economic issues, while anarchy is explicitly concerned with any and all social issues.

When a socialist also identifies as a libertarian, they’re indicating that they’re critical of the traditional authoritarian socialist states that have been so prominent in the world (the USSR, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe, etc.)

But while libertarian socialists might reject one-party states, that doesn’t mean they reject states entirely. A lot of them will support democratic states or other democratic forms of government. Anarchists, on the other hand, reject all forms of government.

Generally someone who chooses to identify as a libertarian socialist rather than an anarchist is making a deliberate choice to use non-committal language that implies they’re willing to accept certain forms of authority. If they opposed all authority as anarchists do, they’d likely call themselves an anarchist.

There are various forms of libertarian socialism that promote a supposedly “libertarian” state, while there are other libertarian socialists who reject the state form, but embrace other forms of authority.

Communists are a famous example of libertarian socialists who embrace various forms of authority including majoritarianism but stop short of supporting a full-blown state. But the form of government they do support greatly resembles states on a smaller, more localized scale. Communists wholly advocate for government, majoritarianism, hierarchy and are probably best described as direct-democrats or socialist monarchists. Anyone claiming communists are anarchists doesn’t understand communism or anarchy.

While a few anarchists might also choose to identify as libertarian socialists in polite company, the majority of libertarian socialists aren’t anarchists, so anarchists would be better off avoiding the “libertarian socialist” moniker since all it really says about a person’s politics is they like socialist economics but have an aversion to vanguard parties. Anarchy is a whole lot more than economics.

To identify as an anarchist is to take a strong stance against all authority, while libertarian socialism, democratic socialism and other such milquetoast labels take no such stance, leaving the door open to all kinds of authority, with the only real concern being democracy in the workplace.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ziq-are-libertarian-socialists-the-same-as-anarchists

from a previous comment: . So there’s 350mil people in the US. There’s 163mil working individuals. It’s 6.3E11 to provide $1,800 month which means if you divide that by the amount of workers you get 3865.0306748466257668. So I’m willing to guess that’s how much a month it would cost to the workers of this country to provide $1,800/MO to everyone in the entire country. Which means you’d have to make that figure smaller because not everyone makes enough to cover that a month.

So that means that if every worker reached that 3865.0306748466257668 every 9 months by paying 429.44785276073619631 a month in extra taxes…

It would take 9 months to gain the amount of money it would take to make everyone in the US a recipient of 1,800$ a month. Now it would take about 14 years to save up for 25 years worth of being able to give everyone in the US 1,800$. Which means if that money was held in a trust and redistributed in 14 years, it would then not be able to cover the cost of bare minimal goods and services for everyone in the US because within that time frame there will be more births, inflation will occur and the cost of living adjusts. That means that less people can have that money from the trust because now you have to account for those adjustments. Which means that even if you did have enough money to give everyone 1,800$ for 25 years, the amount of time needed to accumulate that would make it so that the very same 1,800$ is worthless.

That’s currently how social security works. There’s an amount of money in a trust that’s made up of tax payer dollars that redistributes that money to those who can not take care of themselves. They do a COLA (a cost of living adjustment) annually and give people more every year if you’re receiving from the government which means that’s less money for the next person that needs it.

The current problem is, that the very same money in the trust is running out.

Which is why I said, it’s not a possibility to be able to give everyone an income or keep everyone alive. There will be casualties and that’s usually do to societal needs not being able to be met by the fact that there simply isn’t enough to go around for everyone.

I said No. There’s no twisting of the question, I am also saying if you’re able to support yourself at some time in your life with the help of vocational training which is usually offered through disability services that most states have in place; Then why not attempt it.

I’m not heartless of course I don’t think people who can’t take care of themselves shouldn’t be left to die but there’s so many people that are on sucking that government teat, that the systems in place are over worked and understaffed and underpaid and the trust set aside is declining at record pace because there’s too many people. Plus, we have a mentally declining president that’s cutting programs for those in need: why? idfk…

I don’t disagree but if you’re raised in the US and live in it, it’s what you got. The collapse of East Germany (autocorrect wtf, we listen to the east Germany anthem when we feel like we need hope don’t tell me west) and the German mark was good enough to show when one satellite fails in a major way it shows the flaws of the whole. Socialism is using other people’s money to solve problems that never will be solved and every country that has attempted it in a heavy way has failed or ruined their economy.

Capitalism is at the very core, controlled greed that everyone can bite into and never have to give any of it away because you earned that. We even tell people who are disabled they earn that money to make them not feel bad and they don’t earn it, they receive it. Even then, even if you receive money, you’re still able if you did it right to hoard money.

But I guess if food wasn’t a commodity then I guess if I owned a farm and had cattle for meat that means it’s a fuck all and you can take my cattle because food isn’t a commody?

If there was no value to the things we have we wouldn’t have a controlled trade system to be able to have some kind of a civilized way of living without that controlled trade system Farmer Frank killing you with a pitchfork for stealing his cattle, is more a possibility than going to the grocery store and buying meat.

I just realized this says : Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation … I had no idea this is what I was on. I just read about the fediverse and decided to join because I no bullshit got banned from Reddit for asking: Why don’t we castrate billionaires to prevent generational wealth? and they banned me because they thought I was calling for violence. My appeal got denied. So this is funny to me. I’m a social capitalist with libertarian socialist views. I don’t agree with society but I think the only way to change society or have any kind of effect on it is from dismantling it from within. I’m also straight up for the halting of production to destroy society and watch it collapse.

At the same time though I also know we would need a currency no matter what or trading for food or shelter; That’s why it’s like we can even go as far back as thinking how would a cave person think: they need skin of animal, you have skin of animal I give you food oog boog we trade.

It’s always something.

Okay smart ass, would you do work all day for free? Free as in, absolutely nothing in return or would you at the very least want to be able to feed yourself so you’d work for food, right? Oh shit what if you worked and you want food but you need a new shirt but you need to collect a bunch of fruit to trade for that shirt and that shirt was needed to keep doing your work, now you’re collecting fruit but what if it spoils first so you have to find the best spot that won’t spoil except that territory is controlled by a person who wants 2 sticks for every hour they keep your food unspoiled, what then?

There’s always something.

I’m just saying you can take away money and you will not have a free society where everyone is just in some utopia being accepting of one another there will still be murder and people will still want something in return. Whether it’s your time talking to someone or providing a service like building a house, someone is still going to want your pile of rocks for that.

If you want to hunt and gather shit move the hell to the Appalachians other than that pay for your goods and services.

Really someone learning a valuable skill errors their self worth how? Maybe by a dead end job market but that’s their fault then for not doing research on the job market before spending money on furthering your life and btw Affirm has payment plans that are affordable for nearly every earning bracket for college courses.

Leanring a skill that can help you earn money and get you out of poverty is what fucked up?

So relative to this population size is what saving for the future using the previously given equation would give. Meaning you could save more in less time but that’s more taxes. Then you’d have inflationary rates making it so paychecks only match the rising cost of goods…

We don’t have the ability to do it for everyone.

Do you mean redistribute wealth from billionaires? I think it’s been pretty well established, that will never happen.

No but if there comes a time when they’re able to get vocational training and contribute, they should.

I mean fuck me for setting my standards further than being in poverty forever. By the way, college certification courses aren’t hard to pay for with payment plans and SaaS/cloud computing isn’t a bad one. Even hvac is bumpin’ and that’s one that autistics can accel at. You could sell an infrastructure or build it and it’s less than 15,000$ to get there. Hvac can get to Six Figures but SaaS/Cloud Computing is a high starter. Mri techs aren’t bad either those are high paying low cost certification profession.

Set your goals higher than a bui. How about we help those who are in poverty get into these careers and build them up instead of keeping them on fucking poverty jeezus man.

I understand it’s just paper with cloth fiber that has no value unless we put that value to it. Yes, I understand money is a valueless idea but you take it away Humans are gonna wanna trade something whether it’s your skills or your philosophical babbling, they’re gonna want something in return. You take away one thing you replace it with another. So if someone asks you to cement their driveway you’re gonna want something in return, you might want food, their time back or now you get one night in their home.

It’s always something.

Whatever we save for the future for this population size will not cover the future population. So no matter what you will never have enough to feed, house and provide medical care for everyone.

It would take 13.24 years taxing the 429.44785276073619631 extra to the working people of the US to have enough money saved up for everyone in the country (current population of 350mil) for 25 years based on the 1,800$/MO income that would be dispensed.

Okay so doing the math and I hope I’m right and this is without Ai because I know how much you all hate it. So there’s 350mil people in the US. There’s 163mil working individuals. It’s 6.3E11 to provide $1,800 month which means if you divide that by the amount of workers you get 3865.0306748466257668. So I’m willing to guess that’s how much a month it would cost to the workers of this country to provide $1,800/MO to everyone in the entire country. Which means you’d have to make that figure smaller because not everyone makes enough to cover that a month.

So that means that if every worker reached that 3865.0306748466257668 every 9 months by paying 429.44785276073619631 a month in extra taxes…

I guess it’s only in my state because I get mine on the 13th I think of every month.

Second comment: the othertthing no one talks about is how much of an addiction it becomes. If you get the max amount from disability that near 2k a month minus health insurance and food. You have no generalized savings, unless you’re on section 8 due to how much rent you’d have to pay if you weren’t. You can have assets with disability but regualr SSI which limits assets and you’d have to keep all your money on cash because if you go over a certain limit in savings which you can’t even have a savings account really because of the limit and no work based income it’s harder to get a, “regualr bank account,” unless it’s at a credit union. You also can’t own a car on SSI but you can on disability.

Life isn’t great on these services you’re very limited and you’re better off, if you’re able to getting a career that pays at least 75k$ a year and lower expenses on luxuries.

Fair. Though, who’s gonna pay for the water, food, healthcare and housing? Paycheck or protection for the people? Feed the struggling and struggle more on the what 16$/hr and then beg for a raise because of more taxes that you wanted or what? It’s naive to think that it’s a possibility to feed, house and medically care for everyone without having some kind of a forethought otherwise you’re stuck with negative hindsight. I don’t know how to be more rational about this.