Comments by "BlackFlagsNRoses" (@blackflagsnroses6013) on "Andrew Yang Gets Ripped Apart Over Sociopathic Tweet" video.

@HarryS77 It’s not garbage at all. As a libertarian socialist I concur that welfare is only a necessity due to the corporate-monopolist economy we have. Social safety nets are a band aid, but long term we should be looking for alternatives that doesn’t tax the workers. Out of principle us libertarian socialists don’t agree with coerced taxation. The same way you may get good out of Welfare, the same way the State uses taxes for things you don’t want like adventurism, foreign conflicts, and corporate tax cuts. A proper UBI would be based on ground rent and land value taxation. Social programs is giving scraps to the workers that are robbed through taxation and the monopolists and land owners. Since after WW2 the majority of developed countries have been social democratic and what is the socialist analysis of those systems? That it empowers capital, does nothing to end the monopolies that surrounds us, and have stability at the expense of underdeveloped nations and their labor force. I really hope people start realizing that leftism is the goal of limiting government, and concentrated powers and hierarchies, if not outright abolishing them. The problem with trying to solve problems with public ownership, nationalization, and social programs is, apart from heavy taxation, it depends on the faith of good government. I can’t believe that is any good system where it depends on your type of politicians to remain in power. Whenever opposition gets the power they’ll chip away at those reforms or tweak them. A system based on the belief of good government, as if their ever were such a thing, is doomed to failure. There’s a reason the goal of socialism proper is replacing government institutions with social organization and worker owned industry. That said Yang’s UBI isn’t based on geoism, and wouldn’t be as effective. In fact it sucks.
3
@HarryS77 no I didn’t. You’re going on about universal programs... I’ve never heard of an anarchist supporting government programs. You’re literally defending welfare statism. UBI would by far be a superior, more liberal system than the bureaucracy and centralization of government. Are you sure you’re an anarchist?
2
@HarryS77 I’m not defending Yang’s UBI, I literally said it’s trash. I said a UBI system based on basically Georgism would be more liberal. Georgism is based off classical economics, the precursor of socialism, in which land is recognized as a public resource. And communism isn’t a feasible system until post-scarcity and abundance of wealth is achieved through technological advancements. I also believe it would be inhumane to cut off the poorest from aid, but a system like Georgism, and especially market socialism would better replace those as alternatives. You said markets like they’re anti-socialist. Market socialists have been around since our early philosophers, classical liberals were supportive of socialistic modes of production. Proudhon coined modern Anarchism and he was a market socialist. We’re anti-capitalists not necessarily anti-markets. Well Communists do see a society beyond markets. But don’t make the mistake many leftists do in associating markets with capitalism. We’re against wage slavery and private property as a means of exploitation of labor, not markets themselves. Though many of us do consider a communist system with no need of markets. Ultimately an anarchist society would be diverse full of mutualist, collectivist, communist societies.
2
@schumanhuman he’s gate keeping. In my reading of both classical liberal and libertarian socialist literature I have seen clear the connection between them. The Physiocrats and Classicists were revolutionary in their geo-liberalism. The fact that most people conflate liberal economics with capitalism do not see the forest for the trees. There’s a reason libertarian market socialists were radical free marketeers. The Classicists gave us labor value theory, common land, and even theories of labor exploitation by capital. Where do they think Marx, a student of classical economics got it from? Then I mention radical liberal John Stuart Mill’s promotion of socialist production, and he thinks me a bourgeois capitalist for it. Despite liberals having questionable social stances, their revolutionary ideals are a boon to free society. Capitalism has never been about free markets, they kicked peasants out the commons for a labor force to sell their labor for wages. Capitalists used the State to their advantage. It’s sad many don’t see how classical liberalism gave way to libertarian socialism. They think socialism is about collective over individual. That’s Fascism. Anarchism is the most radical expression of free individualism and social freedom. We support socialism because it’ll liberate all individuals, not just the property owners. Anarcho-Communists were influenced by the Egoism of Max Stirner. The liberal concept of laissez faire is like our own ideal of the spontaneous order. This is what happens when anarchists are more influenced by Marx than actual libertarians. Anarchists that feel closer to social democrats, which is just liberal corporatism, other than liberal limited government and the free association of society, are confused. Unfortunately they conflate liberalism with capitalism. Even though capitalism has never been about genuine free markets, and not a single capitalist or neoliberal protests the State monopolies of land, money, tariff, and patents. I admit I mistook their comments as support of centralized government programs with the use of “universal programs” but that’s on me. Still calling me liberal cause I rather have a system based on classical liberalism than the State corporo-monopolist system of modern capitalism so long as we have to live under a State is just ignorant. No one expects to abolish the State any time soon. Rather a limited government and liberal State so long as we have one. Libertarianism and the abolishment of the State is a long term goal.
2
@HarryS77 boy you don’t even know our own history. Ever heard of Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker, Josiah Warren? Saying only communists are libertarian socialists is the dumbest shit I’ve ever heard, especially when the Mutualist Proudhon was the first to call himself Anarchist. Do you not understand classical economics were the precursors to socialists? Georgism was the pinnacle of classical liberalism. Even the anarchist Leo Tolstoy was supportive of Henry George’s LVT. Classical liberalism was our predecessor, where limited government becomes no government and anti-statism. As an anarchist shouldn’t you be supporting limitations of government, and concentrations of powers like capital? You sound like these social democrats that try to reform things instead of attacking what sustains capitalism, government, the State. I mean we don’t even have a liberal system, the monopolies (that formed under government protections) are basically what Adam Smith was attacking. Actual liberals are anti-monopolists. If you still don’t understand the relation between classical liberalism and libertarian socialism where here’s what a liberal said: “Hitherto there has been no alternative for those who lived by their labour, but that of labouring either each for himself alone, or for a master. But the civilizing and improving influences of association, and the efficiency and economy of production on a large scale, may be obtained without dividing the producers into two parties with hostile interests and feelings, the many who do the work being mere servants under the command of the one who supplies the funds, and having no interest of their own in the enterprise except to earn their wages with as little labour as possible. The speculations and discussions of the last fifty years, and the events of the last thirty, are abundantly conclusive on this point. If the improvement which even triumphant military despotism has only retarded, not stopped, shall continue its course, there can be little doubt that the status of hired labourers will gradually tend to confine itself to the description of workpeople whose low moral qualities render them unfit for anything more independent: and that the relation of masters and work-people will be gradually superseded by partnership, in one of two forms: in some cases, association of the labourers with the capitalist; in others, and perhaps finally in all, association of labourers among themselves.” — John Stuart Mill Classical liberals were fine with socialism so long as it wasn’t about State interference in the economy
1
@HarryS77 Marx?!!! Marx who had the same notion of capital as neoliberals. As in land is the same as capital. The same Marx who shitted on Proudhon because of arrogance and believing he was the smartest man on Earth only to agree with Proudhon. I said I support Georgism as a step towards free society and the acceptance of land as a common resource. From there we can easily make a case for the end of all rent and taxation towards an occupancy and use Mutualist system. A market socialist system that’ll get people accustomed to workers cooperatives, federation, and free association. And from there a case of common ownership and communism can be made. After all from Proudhon’s mutualism the IWW came to Syndicalist and communist conclusions. Bakunin believed he was just taking the Mutualist system of Proudhon to it’s natural conclusions, collectivization and syndicalist associations. I’m a libertarian socialist, and just cause I believe all it’s strains have something of value to add to the social revolution, and can work together doesn’t make be a liberal playing at anarchy. Would you rather contend with a centralized State, or a limited liberal government? Literally other anarchists have talked of the relation between classical liberalism and libertarianism. I recommend Anarcho-Syndicalist Rudolf Rocker’s Pioneers of American Freedom: Origin of Liberal and Radical Thought in America.
1
@HarryS77 you do know that Marx came to his economic work through classical economists right? He venerated them, to the point of calling them classical economists to distinguish them from the neoliberals he called “vulgar economists”. Adam Smith popularized the idea that value comes from cost, the labor put into it. David Ricardo who was influential to the Georgists expanded upon this and he literally was the influence of the Ricardian socialists, Thomas Hodgskin was an English socialist writer on political economy, critic of capitalism and defender of free trade and early trade unions who wrote “Labor Defended Against the Claims of Capital” Literally the first theories of labor exploitation came from classical economists. Charles Dunoyer and Charles Comte even wrote about class antagonisms and struggle well before even Proudhon
1
@Matias Martinez might I also offer this article as complementary to your reading Marx’s “critique” of Henry George’s LVT. https://merionwest.com/2019/06/02/through-letters-the-gap-between-henry-george-and-karl-marx/ And here is a link to Marx’s letter https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/letters/81_06_20.htm It's been a while since I've read it - but from what I remember, Marx's basic critique boils down to two things: He says George's ideas aren't socialism. He is correct. Building on point 1, he criticizes George for not eliminating capital/wage labor. He is also correct that George doesn't do these things. From what I recall, he never actually refutes the benefits of George's remedy or its ability to reduce poverty and increase labor bargaining power. His entire gripe is with its inability to eliminate wage labor and private property... so his criticism, in my eyes, is very weak and primarily a reaction to contemporary misinterpretations of George and his ideas as socialist. I actually agree with Marx that wage labor is fundamentally exploitative and that value is generally generated by labor - but I don't think his solution to these is practical, at least not in the foreseeable future, and it comes with risks which likely are not worth the rewards.Kropotkin’s communist theories are far superior and he comes to them through an actual scientific and evolutionary basis. Whereas Georgism is actually a brilliant solution to the problem of rentierism. I would point out, as others have done, that this is not a serious critique and is just Marx's ramblings in a letter. Having actually read both Marx and George, I honestly don't see how their analyses are incompatible for the most part. As far as I'm aware, George's theory of liberal economics doesn't depend on any specific theory of value. Marx's critique is in general more wide reaching than George's but does not touch on a lot of the things George picks up on with respect to land. His criticism for George was as childish as were his criticisms on libertarian socialists like Proudhon or Bakunin. And keeping it real Marxism has been tried before, Henry George’s LVT hasn’t. As a libertarian socialist I do support a more liberal system so long as we have a State because it would limit the government, and an actual liberal economics system would break monopolies through a more competitive market system whereas the State props up these mega corporations and monopolies, that only exist because of government interference and privileges. With an actual limited government system socialism could be more easily implemented because it has nothing to do with government. A free economy would really help the rise of workers cooperatives, Mutualist banks for laborers, and the socialization of industry and production. Or as Proudhon put it: “Under the law of association, transmission of wealth does not apply to the instruments of labour, so cannot become a cause of inequality. [...] We are socialists [...] under universal association, ownership of the land and of the instruments of labour is social ownership. [...] We want the mines, canals, railways handed over to democratically organised workers' associations. [...] We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and societies, joined together in the common bond of the democratic and social Republic” Georgism followed by mutualism would just be the start to an anarchist social revolution
1
@mbburry4759 .... classical liberal Georgism is dictatorship.... you obviously don’t understand what an LVT is. What are you conflating it with property tax? LVT collects the rent of land, it’s a Single Tax that eliminates all other taxes like income, property (capital), sales etc.... Georgism will be the promises of classical liberalism become reality.
1
@mbburry4759 like I said it’s not a property tax. It’s a tax on the rent of land, valued by it’s market price. I recommend you look into it. And LVT is the only efficient tax that doesn’t cause economic problems. “Georgism is concerned with the distribution of economic rent caused by natural monopolies, pollution and the control of commons, including title of ownership for natural resources and other contrived privileges (e.g. intellectual property). Any natural resource which is inherently limited in supply can generate economic rent, but the classical and most significant example of land monopoly involves the extraction of common ground rent from valuable urban locations. Georgists argue that taxing economic rent is efficient, fair and equitable. The main Georgist policy recommendation is a tax assessed on land value. Georgists argue that revenues from a land value tax (LVT) can be used to reduce or eliminate existing taxes such as on income, trade, or purchases that are unfair and inefficient. Some Georgists also advocate for the return of surplus public revenue to the people by means of a basic income or citizen's dividend. The concept of gaining public revenues mainly from land and natural resource privileges was widely popularized by Henry George through his first book, Progress and Poverty (1879). The philosophical basis of Georgism dates back to several early thinkers such as John Locke, Baruch Spinoza, and Thomas Paine. Economists since Adam Smith and David Ricardo have observed that a public levy on land value does not cause economic inefficiency, unlike other taxes. A land value tax also has progressive tax effects. Advocates of land value taxes argue that they would reduce economic inequality, increase economic efficiency, remove incentives to underutilize urban land and reduce property speculation.” Georgism is even more profound in it’s potential effects than many may know.
1