> Libertrarians are correct but dumb
> Marxists are correct but dumb
There are separate aspects of economy where each is correct but one can't be totally victorious over another and even if it was it would be catastrophic to civilisation

>>24517634 (OP)
Reality is often boring.
Mixed market has the best track record out of every system.
Bell Labs is an excellent success story of free markets and pro social goals mutually benefitting each other.
Singapore is another good example of a fairly small organization punching above its weight thanks to a smart blend of public and private incentives.

Anyway.

>>>/his/

>>24517634 (OP)
I had those books on a shortlist to get because I read some very interesting excepts from it. (At least the first one) Do you recommend them?

>>24517634 (OP)
Libertarians are incomparably more accurate about economies work than Marxists. The problem with libertarianism is its incredibly dumb understanding of how power works, not its economic framework.

>>24518561
>the problem with libertarianism is its incredibly dumb understanding of how power works
how do they think power works?

they are my favorite history books and braudel is my favorite non-fiction writer.
There is both very intimate storytelling of how people at every level of society lived their lives, as well as charts and data showing macro-trends that happened throughout this time. Learned about him through reading some article by Manuel DeLanda, strangely

>>24518565
They essentially just ignore it entirely. They act almost like anarchists when it comes to the state

>>24517634 (OP)
>catastrophic to civilisation
That would be ideal.
A life without capital would produce a great and actual civilization

>>24518158
Fpbp. Once you stop seeking ultimate truth in the realm of political economy, as the Marxists and Austrians both do (even if they'd never admit it), boring politics make a lot more sense. A moderate social democracy or Christian democracy that gives its citizenry both basic material necessities and the freedom to innovate is the best system. It repeatedly produces a level of prosperity that both socialism and hardline neoliberalism fail to achieve, while still providing enough intellectual liberty and free-time for its citizenry to pursue higher ends than obsessing over nonsense like dialectical materialism or praxeology.

>>24519508
Social democracies are literally incapable of reproducing their populations

>>24519514
Birthrates are collapsing globally. It has little to do with forms of governance and more to do with sex education

>>24518551
I am currently on the second book and I prefer it but first one is also good
>>24519525
3 years ago I was obsessed with that problem and it turns out only important factor that affects fertility rate excluding very big famines disease and war is freedom of women. In modern society with abortion and pills if you have women rights you will have fertility rate lower than 2 if for some reason women are not free and depend on males fertility rate will be considerably higher. All other factors such as city-village life, income, child rearing support... have very small effect on fertility rates

>>24518597
Well a lot of them are anarchists

>>24519525
It has to do with women having sexual freedom. I have pages and pages of theory written on this combined with intellectual history (how ideas become virulent and change perceptions) and cultural psychology (how certain cultures have mentalities which produce certain behaviors) as well as a good dose of political sociology for good measure.

>>24517634 (OP)
>where each is correct
>abolish state and wage labour
>abolish state and labour regulations
shit mayne i don't know seems like your 'mixed economy' is a retarded idea for gay faggots with brain damage

>>24517634 (OP)
Yes, OP! You got it!!!
Now, go read a real philosopher: start with "Politics" by Aristotle, which says exactly what you are saying. You could also read Nicomachean Ethics before since his politics are connected to his ethic.

>>24517634 (OP)
https://handwiki.org/wiki/Social:Libertarian_Marxism

>>24520560
>Guy Debord, Raya Dunayevskaya, C. L. R. James, Antonio Negri, Anton Pannekoek, Fredy Perlman, E. P. Thompson, and Yanis Varoufakis
what sort of shite do you have to smoke to put any of these names in the same sentence

>>24520749
"Libertarian socialism" is just a buzzword for compass-brained redditors who think radically different traditions can be lumped together so long as they're "anti-authoritarian".

>>24520838
Anon, the objective of Marxism (in the form of Communism) is quite explicitly the dissolution of the state.
>who think radically different traditions can be lumped together so long as they're "anti-authoritarian".
Left-libertarianism (in the form of Anarchism) predates the emergence and association of the concept with the political right by at least 100 years.

>>24521985
>Anon, the objective of Marxism (in the form of Communism) is quite explicitly the dissolution of the state.
Obviously, that's the endgoal of all Marxists. That still doesn't mean that "libertarian socialism" is a useful term, given how many contradictory tendencies it lumps together.
>Left-libertarianism (in the form of Anarchism) predates the emergence and association of the concept with the political right by at least 100 years.
Again, that's true, but you still missed my whole point. CLR James, Antonio Negri, and Yanis Varoufakis have very little in common beyond being Marxists opposed to Marxism-Leninism, yet they're all grouped together under this vague notion of "Libertarian Marxism".