Authoritarian vs. Libertarian Socialism



Marxist economics doesn’t propose complete enforced equality. It fundamentally proposes a more democratic economy in which control is switched from capitalists to the workers. While this would result in a more equal economic distribution, this would mean, in terms of marginal utility extracted from wealth, that the same money would be used more efficiently. While the incentive may be less, this will be because it is easier to make people happier and healthier for less overall resource usage. Having to work less of your life away to live comfortably isn’t a bad thing. The artificial scarcity enforced by capitalism has conditioned us to think that raw wealth generation is the only way to improve living conditions, while in reality distributing wealth on a more equal and need based basis can do so as well. Even so, incentive is not destroyed, and there isn’t absolute equality.

Fundamentally, the need to work to generate resources will still exist, and individuals could still be rewarded for their personal labor. Socialism itself doesn’t seek to create complete equality, and as we’ve seen with social democracies, redistribution of wealth to help meet basic needs doesn’t drastically reduce incentive.



That is partially true; however, centralizing all production output could be considered an infringement on individual freedom. If X person makes something then X person should be able to keep that thing if they were the only one involved. As such, a fairer wage ratio would cure the symptoms you described without eliminating personal incentives. Combined with redistribution of wealth to fund programs which provide basic necessities and the issue is largely fixed.

Extraordinary work should be extraordinarily rewarded. You can ensure that a lesser workload is available without having to collectivize


Well I don’t desire a centralized system as you know, although I think some decentralized planning has use in non-state societies, I am not entirely opposed to some market mechnisms in a socialist society, at least on a pragmatic basis. Although, I don’t necessarily think we should organize society based upon maxims that define ownership, but rather democratic decision making in order to pursue an optimal societal outcome. Optimally, I would like to fully pursue “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” as I think the more equality the better, and market mechanisms inherently result in capital accumulation, however if market mechanism are kept fairly limited by redistribution and by voluntary mutual aid, I suppose it might be necessary, at least for a while in an ideologically heterogenous society.


I could work with that. As long as personal possessions and mutual agreements are allowed, I’d be fine with a more democratic workplace and wealth redistribution.


Please tell me about how primitive communist tribes died out due to individual greed and self interest, or should I bring up mutual Aid, something that anarchist socialists base much of their theory on but is also relevant to marx. Humans are not rapacious greedy creatures, the behaviours that are suggested to be a core part of us would have led to our extinction millennia ago due to the simple fact that overall tribal health was what determined survival, not individual.

Ok liberal

Unless you live in the 3rd world we’re workers don’t even have access to unions or even basic industry (Marxist Leninists proved you can industrialise from scratch). Or capitalists genocide us with their robot armies to deal with the “overpopulation problem”

I’m not even in favour of using centralised systems but god can you think outside of your liberalism?

  1. Scale. It’s easier to create a system on a small scale than it is to do so on a larger scale. And thanks to the current scale of the world it’d take something momentous to reduce us back down to a tribal scale. Tribal systems worked because it was in the best interest of the individual to protect the group. It’s a lot easier to hunt and forage and build shelter with 30 people than it is to do so with 1.

  2. You can stop using liberalism as a way to dismiss my arguments. It’s ad hominem at it’s finest and it completely undermines your argument

  3. You seem to view capitalists as this greedy evil monolith out of a political cartoon. We’re not. We simply believe that historically, capitalism has generally lead to the best results.

  4. I’m a liberal. Deal with it. Considering the fact that most westerners are if you want to have any chance of implementing your ideas then you might want to stop belittling us and start negotiating

  5. Your entire argument for authoritarian socialism seems to lie on the false dilemma that unless we implement socialism soon we’ll all become slaves or something


If scale is what you want , how about European villages with populations in the thousands practicing mutual aid? Or perhaps pre enclosure England?

You treat “individual” freedom as if it’s a literal physical thing, that will responded to with mockery by anyone who isn’t a liberal. Move on to concrete and desirable goals not abstract idealisms. An idea is rarely fit beyond the era it was conceived in.

Talk about the biggest straw man of hard leftist views out there, ugh. We are in alot of trouble as humanity if the world in its current and soon to be future state is the “best” we can come up with.

No, I’ll watch from the distance as the weight of your ideologies folly falls ontop of your head, give it 50 years or so and liberal democracy will virtually be extinct. Also most people aren’t liberals, evidenced by the anti liberal far right in Europe rapidly gaining ground, and similarly left wing parties shifting harder left, with the weakest political forces being liberals.

We are already wage slaves, even anarchists who you claim to have read recognise this.



Do you actually have any interest in compromise or a mutual understanding? Or have you just come here to reaffirm your own beliefs? I came here to do the former and with Nat I was able to. If you’re the former then please try to be more empathetic and open. If you’re the latter then you’re just wasting my time.


Tell you what, since you are a nice lad, And you want to seriously debate, not just me but people who completely dwarf me I can invite you a server called the TPC, it’s well moderated with well enforced rules to debate, and has economists, post graduate level philosophers and even a fair few scientists amongst its core active membership, the server owner is an expert neo Marxist who will discuss with litteally anyone who fairly engages in the principle of charity, you too @Naturea

Nice thing is you can do it all from your browser if you don’t like downloading stuff.

Membership is earned through a demonstration of competency. The place is also excellent for any kind of debate. (Non members can still participate in most of the servers most important channels)


I’ll assume you’re the first one then. Take my advice: read up on logical fallacies and attack the opposition’s arguments rather than the opposition themselves. You’ll get a lot further.


I will tell you why I am a liberal. Historically, the societies with the best are very often liberal or liberal-esque ones. Now this doesn’t mean that liberalism is necessary for a happy society, but it does show that liberalism and high personal freedoms tend to increase happiness and quality of life.

Examples include: Modern day Switzerland, modern Netherlands, Scandinavia, Canada, Athenian Republic (when it was a full democracy, without all the oligarchical bullshit, so in the 6th-4th centuries), and the Republic of Venice to name a few.

Liberalism is also not mutually exclusive with socialism, as the SDF has shown by creating a sort of Market LibSoc society in Northern Syria which is pretty successful and might be this century’s CNT-FAI, though with much more foreign support it actually has a shot at survival.