Liberals and Libertarians.

There was one thread named "libertarians are a joke" with some liberals talking as though all libertarians are capitalists and libertarians pointing out that this was wrong.

Then there was another thread named "what does socialism mean" with some libertarians talking as though all liberals are communists and some liberals pointing out that this was wrong.

We should be beginning to see a pattern here.

Are we all in agreement that Marx's idea of communism and capitalism are all naive bullshit? I'm not just talking about Marx either, I'm talking about all sorts of political philosophers who knew very little about the field they discussed and viewed the world through a very narrow lense. Marx discussed socio-economics yet he did not major in mathematics which is fundamental to any subject dealing with economics. In his writings he did not prove scientifically that his theories were viable. He was a total failure. No one can take him seriously as a scientist, only as a case study in psychology investigating how people get drawn into fallacies.

So Libertarians believe communism is utter BS and claim not to be capitalists but free marketeers. Whilst liberals believe capitalism is utter BS and claim not to be communists but social democrats....

Perhaps it is time for libertarians to state clearly that capitalism is BS and for liberals to state clearly that communism is BS.

Then we can all agree that Marx and other idealists who followed suite, including national socialists, capitalists and fascists, were bullshitters and we need to do things scientifically.

As a libertarian myself I hereby clearly state that capitalism is BS.

Marc came up with the term capitalism to describe what was going on with the society. The politics in most of europe were largely Laissez-faire, which had led to a productive but very split up society, with a group of people being capital owners and a much larger group being workers. This was part of his work theory of an economic way of understanding history (Marx's largest contributions have been to the field of history). In this theory there were some different stages of societal development depending on the class system.
The Antique system was made up of masters and slaves, like the roman society. Then the Feudal system made up of farm owners and copyholders. Then the capitalist system made up of owners of capital and workers. Marx then visioned the next step being a class/stateless society, and he wrote alot of stuff about communism and we all know what that led to.
My point with this is that capitalism is what marx called the system which consists of some owners of capital who control all the productive forces of the society, and then alot of workers who are being more or less exploited by the capital owners. People who want a system like this are thus capitalists in the marx sense of the word. People who want a laissez-faire economy are therefore not necessarily capitalists, but when laissez-faire economy was implemented before, it led to capitalism.
I'm not focusing on teh communists because true communists are unlikely to exist and easy to prove wrong in alot of ways whenever they open their mouthes and spout out whatever gibberish tehy're reciting this time.
The libertarians on the other hand advocate a 'free market' but when asked most of them say 'ohh, but it's going to be regulated so it can't exploit people fo' sho''. Which is all fine, i agree with them on that, economic theory tells us that places with free markets flourish, at least economically. So with the set regulations to prevent abuse we should of course try to optimize the conditions for our companies.
The dangerous kind of libertarians however are, as the op said, the ones that go "COMPLETELY FREE MARKET NO REGULATIONS PEOPLE ARE SMART THEY CAN DO THINGS THEMSELVES!!!!". Because as history tells us, a situation like this leads to a capitalist society which leads to, if not oppression in the traditional sense, a sort of oppression in an economical and social sense for a lot of people.
Another argument for this situation happening are put forth by people when argueing against communism, "basic human nature".
to quote >>14  "Everybody wants more power, not matter what.". In a completely unregulated market this would lead to people with power getting more power, then they have more resources to acquire more power, spiral etc. And since you can't get power without others loosing it (you can get power without others loosing it but if we see it in an exponential sense like this, with some people acquiring more and more power, alot of people are bound to loose some), we will end up with large segregation between classes again.

anyway, if seen this way, people who claim to be free marketeers can easily be thought of as being capitalists, even if it is involuntarily, because a free market is seen as leading to a capitalist state of society. On the other hand, since liberals (you americans and your weird definitions) want to constrict the free market more, drive in more taxes to presumably give them to people without alot fo money (this is just an assumption, taxes could be raised in order to go to war or fill teh pockets of president, but we'll assume for the group of people coined liberals, they want to give the money to people with no money). this reduces the amount of people with alot of money, and the people with no money, thus closening the "class" gap, leading you closer to a class-less society, which is what communsim want.

this is most likely the reason for peoples notions of libertarians being capitalist and liberals being communists. Even if it's unlikely america would be communist if everbody voted for the liberal party, the liberals => higher taxes => communism is a pretty simple and straightforward conclusion.

But really, it all only makes sense if you think marx's way of understanding history is correct...

i lost track of what i'm saying, good night 4chon /pol/ :3 we should all have our different opinions and reach compromises for optimal powerups ^__^/