Just read this

[Anonymous No.14985554]

After reading this, I realized that anyone who is intellectually honest can't be a right winger. This is an amazing book.

[Anonymous No.14985563]

>>14985554
Yeah, I became a national socialist after reading it.

[Anonymous No.14985599]

Does the book give a good reason to ignore the fact that central planning is wildly inefficient in comparison to the price coordinated resource distribution of market economies because of the calculation problem? If not it's waste of time.

[Anonymous No.14985601]

>>14985554
im reading east of eden and picture adam trask as looking like the author

[Anonymous No.14985609]

>>14985599
Who said anything about central planning. A steep income tax will wealth distribution is still socialism

[Anonymous No.14985618]

>>14985599
no ur dishonest, argument void

[Anonymous No.14985625]

Communism does not work.

Marxism does not work.

Socialism does not work.

[Anonymous No.14985633]

>>14985609
KEK

[Anonymous No.14985634]

>>14985625
all three work marks like you into a seething shoot

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.14985636]

>>14985554
Is this a socialism-is-when-the-state-does-stuff sort?

>>14985563
State socialism, but nationalist and devoid of what it is that socialists are aiming to do, so no, liberal.

>>14985609
>A steep income tax will wealth distribution is still socialism
But no it isn’t

[Anonymous No.14985642]

>>14985609
Taxing people and distributing that money is a type of central planning. Central planning is when resources are being directed by a central authority.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.14985648]

>>14985625
Ah, the mantra of the liberal.

[Anonymous No.14985657]

What is Socialism? Whenever people point out "socialist" countries, others lay out that they're not -- or more "social democratic," etc.

So, what is it? Because I get the feeling it's too nebulous.

[Anonymous No.14985663]

>>14985642
Central planning of production is what the economic calculation problem is about. Wealth redistribution with market forces taking over from there does not run into it as much

[Anonymous No.14985665]

>>14985657
Socialism is mass death, starvation and misery.

[Anonymous No.14985666]

>>14985601
He actually does address Mises' and Hayek's arguments about the so-called inefficiency of central planning and socialism.
>3. SOCIALISM IS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CONTROLS THE ECONOMY, AND THAT’S ALWAYS A DISASTER
>...
>One of the key defenses of American capitalism asks others to look at how the Soviet Union fared, then look at our own extremely prosperous country. Case closed. The structure of this argument has remained the same for about a century. Here’s how Ludwig von Mises argued in 1947:
>The only certain fact about Russian affairs under the Soviet regime with regard to which all people agree is: that the standard of living of the Russian masses is much lower than that of the masses in the country which is universally considered as the paragon of capitalism, the United States of America. If we were to regard the Soviet regime as an experiment, we would have to say that the experiment has clearly demonstrated the superiority of capitalism and the inferiority of socialism.
>In that paragraph, we can see that people who make this type of argument are not always intellectually honest. Look how Mises reasoned: the Soviet standard of living is much lower than the U.S. standard. Therefore, the experiment has demonstrated the inferiority of socialism. But hang on a minute: that’s not the case at all. For that to be true, the United States and the Soviet Union would have had to be similarly situated when the “experiment” began. But in 1917, when the Russian Revolution occurred, the United States was postindustrial, whereas Russia was largely preindustrial. It was a nation of peasants, “backward, agrarian, and semi-feudal,” not to mention having suffered eight years of war (World War I and the Civil War).
>The average standard of living was far lower than that in the United States during the Tsar’s time as well. In order to make a comparison between the Soviet and the American systems, you wouldn’t look at raw standard of living measurements, you’d look at growth. When you use the proper measurement, Soviet economic performance doesn’t look nearly so dismal. As a UCLA/RAND Corporation study noted in 1988, “Since the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the Soviet Union has transformed itself from an underdeveloped economy into a modern industrial state with a GNP second only to that of the United States.” (That does not, of course, justify all of the atrocities!)
1/?

[Anonymous No.14985672]

>>14985666
>In order to make a comparison between the Soviet and the American systems, you wouldn’t look at raw standard of living measurements, you’d look at growth
No you wouldn't. Growth doesn't matter when it's short term fake growth that implodes on itself.

Now fuck off you retarded communist.

[Anonymous No.14985676]

>>14985665
Capitalism is mass death, starvation and misery

[Anonymous No.14985683]

>>14985554
Robinson is based
but i wonder, how many people would not even consider themselves left wingers if they were intellectually honest?

[Anonymous No.14985686]

>>14985676
Fake news as usual from retard commies.

[Anonymous No.14985687]

>>14985666
>In fact, we know that greater state intervention in the economy isn’t inherently bad. Plenty of countries that exert far greater control over the economy than the United States have become economic powerhouses, such as China, Germany, and Sweden. Norway’s economy is robust, despite the state owning a colossal portion of the country’s wealth. Denmark collects 46 percent of its GDP in taxes, versus 26 percent in the United States, and Denmark does fine. (They haven’t yet “run out of other people’s money.”) That’s not to say that the United States should follow any of these countries’ models. But those who talk about the “disaster” that results from government interference in the economy are usually selectively picking cases where socialist governments have done disastrous things and ignoring the numerous instances where they have operated benignly or beneficially.
>There is a highly dishonest cherry-picking that goes on in evaluating what “government” does. For example, many people will cite the failures of U.S. public schools, which do not do as good a job as schools in other countries, as an example of how “government” shouldn’t manage a task best left to the private sector—Kevin Williamson makes public schools a centerpiece of his anti-socialist argument in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism. But think how absurd that is: the other countries we’re “losing” to aren’t running their schools for profit. If U.S. public schools are an example of socialism’s failure, why aren’t Chinese and Finnish schools examples of its success? It’s the same kind of silly argument that sees Amtrak as an indictment of government, while conveniently ignoring the superior performance of the public Chinese and French high-speed rail systems.
>It’s also the case that the line between “planned economies” and “free markets” can be quite blurry. It often goes unnoticed that large companies are frequently run internally like centrally planned economies, and large parts of our lives are “planned” by unseen, unelected private-sector bureaucrats. In People’s Republic of Walmart, Leigh Phillips and Michal Rozworski point out that large companies like Walmart already operate like “socialist economies”—just not in the way they treat their workers—insofar as decisions are made by central planners and there is no internal market within the company. Phillips and Rozworski observe that inside corporate firms, free-market transactions don’t exist, and when companies try to introduce them, the results can be disastrous.
2/?

[Anonymous No.14985689]

This one is better. Based Hayek.

[Anonymous No.14985693]

>>14985687
Stop posting you fucking retard.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.14985694]

>>14985657
It is as nebulous as capitalism. Many gradations, but purely speaking, it’s when there’s no state

>>14985665
That’s capitalism when it’s through with you

[Anonymous No.14985695]

>>14985599
"Central planning" has nothing to do with socialism, you embarrassing ignoramus.

[Anonymous No.14985696]

>>14985683
How many consider themselves right-wing that aren't full nazis?

[Anonymous No.14985702]

>>14985663
Money is a resource just like anything else so it is just as susceptible to the knowledge problem. There's no way for a central planner to know exactly how much money needs to go where with anything close to perfect accuracy so there will always be that inefficiency. This inefficiency is made worse the more you expand that bureaucracy and amount of money being distributed.

You can't have socialism without central planning because socialism IS central planning.

[Anonymous No.14985703]

>>14985694
See >>14985686 and stop posting fake news.

[Anonymous No.14985704]

>>14985687
>The libertarian CEO of Sears, for instance, decided that the company should operate on free-market principles internally as well as externally. This meant that the store’s various departments would all operate as their own self-interested entities, competing against each other (hardware vs. shoes vs. appliances, etc.). Previously, different units of Sears cooperated with one another—if one department wanted something from another, it would simply request it. Under the new system, it would have to buy it and negotiate a contract. The effect was catastrophic: the departments tried to take advantage of each other and ended up hurting the collective interest of Sears. The appliance department would try to screw over the hardware department and vice versa. Executives from different parts of Sears hid information from each other and spied. The collective good of the enterprise was ill served by internal market competition. Phillips and Rozworski point out that, in some ways, society is like one big Sears: we are all hurting each other and duplicating work instead of recognizing our common interests. Markets, they say, can undermine the collective well-being, which is why companies never operate internally on free-market principles.
>Paul Krugman summarizes why the Sears debacle has discomforting implications for those who oppose central planning:
>We may live in a market sea, but that sea is dotted with many islands that we call firms, some of them quite large, within which decisions are made not via markets but via hierarchy—even, you might say, via central planning. Clearly, there are some things you don’t want to leave up to the market—the market itself is telling us that, by creating those islands of planning and hierarchy… For a free-market true believer the recognition that some things are best not left up to markets should be a disturbing notion. If the limitations of markets in providing certain kinds of shared services are important enough to justify the creation of command-and-control entities with hundreds of thousands or even millions of workers, might there not even be some goods and services (*cough* health care *cough*) best provided by non-market means even at the level of the economy as a whole?
3/3

[Anonymous No.14985711]

>>14985657
An economy is socialist if the means of production are owned by people other than those who make it work.

[Anonymous No.14985719]

>>14985711
Oops, should be: are NOT owned

[Anonymous No.14985723]

>>14985702
You keep saying that when I already showed that it's not. If you redistribute taxes you are not telling anyone what to produce. The people that get the handouts spend the money in a market economy just like they had earned it.

[Anonymous No.14985729]

>>14985554
Robinson’s praise of socialism is based mostly on wishful thinking inspired by moral outrage. He gives no realistic causal mechanism of how socialism will work in practice. His “theory” boils down to:
- dreaming of utopias,
- moral outrage,
- lecturing by a self-appointed moral authority,
- nobody will need to work at an unpleasant job, e.g. garbageman or roofer (my opinion), or due to a boss, or a boring job, but somehow the work will get done anyway,
- nobody will be poor regardless of whatever else they do or don’t do,
- lots of “free stuff” paid for by others, expropriated,
- who produces what, how, where, and how much of a large, ever-changing, wide variety of goods and services in a society of millions of people with dispersed, localized, knowledge is no concern to Robinson. It will happen just fine; no causal explanation needed.

[Anonymous No.14985730]

>>14985711
So is universal healthcare and free college socialist or not? You could still have private universities and hospitals

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.14985731]

>>14985703
For you my neocon liberal friend and for all the other liberals ITT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7x7oVwhHok

[Anonymous No.14985736]

>>14985723
Redistribution does not create wealth and it hampers growth.

[Anonymous No.14985743]

>>14985730
That's capitalism with a welfare state. Any state with private ownership of capital is a capitalist state.

[Anonymous No.14985744]

>>14985731
>Richard D. Wolff
No thank you.

[Anonymous No.14985748]

>>14985723
Yes, you can have socialism within a market economy. This is the synthesis that most modern socialists aim for because they recognize the calculation problem. What they refuse to recognize is that they're just making a less efficient market by injecting central planning.

The government distributing money is a type of central planning. Money is a resource and when resources are distributed by a central authority, that is central planning. That is how socialism can exist within a market economy.

[Anonymous No.14985755]

>>14985696
idk i should check out the data
but i imagine there is a 1 percent that's full nazi and a 15 percent that supports that 1 percent

[Anonymous No.14985756]

>>14985736
Yes but that is not the economic calculation problem. Socialism through heavy taxes and redistribution does not have to deal with like full Communism since the state does not own the means of production.

>In the 1920 paper, Mises argued that the pricing systems in socialist economies were necessarily deficient because if a public entity owned all the means of production, no rational prices could be obtained for capital goods as they were merely internal transfers of goods and not "objects of exchange", unlike final goods. Therefore, they were unpriced and hence the system would be necessarily irrational as the central planners would not know how to allocate the available resources efficiently

[Anonymous No.14985766]

>>14985748
You can call it central planning but it's not the central planning of production that the economic calculation problem is concerned with. The problem is deciding what to produce not how to distribute it

[Anonymous No.14985782]

terrible thread
this is facebook level of cringe

[Anonymous No.14985784]

>>14985666
>>14985687
>>14985704
I dont like how this guy fucking writes. Nothing against his particular argument, Just annoying neolibral like journo speech patterns.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.14985867]

>>14985744
>what’s socialism??
>Better not ask any socialists.
>Hey, I know! Lets ask liberals!

[Anonymous No.14985886]

>>14985554
FUCK IT NAZBOL GANG

[Anonymous No.14985890]

>>14985867
But what if the liberal calls them self a socialism. How can I tell. Is something socialist when it is entirely socialised? Doesnt help a lot of different groups classify themselves as socialists...

[Anonymous No.14985922]

>>14985867
No one cares. Socialism does not work.

[Anonymous No.14985939]

>>14985636
>State socialism, but nationalist and devoid of what it is that socialists are aiming to do, so no, liberal.
>>14985694
>It is as nebulous as capitalism. Many gradations, but purely speaking, it’s when there’s no state

i can't claim to be an expert and i hate to speak on something when i havent read extensively on the corresponding literature, but i know enough to make it clear to me that you think you know something you are completely mistaken about. Does anyone on this board even read is or is it just 24/7 larping

[Anonymous No.14985941]

>>14985554
>you should be a socialist!
>no no no not like that! You can't be a nationalist and an authoritarian too! You have to uphold the liberal capitalist principles of democracy, progress, rights and the individual to be a REAL socialist

[Anonymous No.14985943]

>>14985890
Do absentee owners control the means of production? Then it ain't socialism.

[Anonymous No.14985947]

>>14985666
>the US in 1917 was post-industrial
???

[Anonymous No.14985955]

>>14985636
robinson is a dem soc so yea its not great

[Anonymous No.14985960]

>>14985941
based

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.14985982]

>>14985890
Why I posted the professor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7x7oVwhHok

>>14985939
I know. It’s confusing. Why posted the yt link

[Anonymous No.14986026]

>>14985636
statism is a form of socialism

[Anonymous No.14986040]

>>14985686
thank u capitalism, now that i make $1.91 per day im no longer poor!! My life is so good now!

[Anonymous No.14986051]

>>14986040
Better than making $0 per day

[Anonymous No.14986053]

>>14986040
rich leftists can't into personal sacrifice

[Anonymous No.14986066]

>>14986051
thats a very weak and juvenile quote to frame with such an elegant facade

[Anonymous No.14986067]

>>14985636
>but nationalist and devoid of what it is that socialists are aiming to do
Why do leftists think they can claim a monopoly on socialism? The idea has
existed long before any modern leftist articulation of it.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.14986070]

>>14986026
Socialists have found it difficult parting with the notion of states. Marx I believe wanted the state to whither away, but it would only happen after an equanimous economy was established, something like that. Why we have communist parties and no communist countries

[Anonymous No.14986083]

>>14986066
Not an argument.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.14986095]

>>14986051
>Better than making $0 per day
Turns out, no.
$0 is better

>>14986067
What are talking about? Socialists are socialists. “Leftists” what has existed? “Modern leftists”? Like liberal college students with concerns about racism and sexism?

[Anonymous No.14986110]

>>14986095
>What are talking about?
Read some books and you might understand.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.14986130]

>>14986051
The quote is that of a sociopath.
Socialism has had many deep logical thinkers that have disassembled capitalism and their findings are usually proven right. Mousis, wrong.


>>14986110
No, I’m afraid your going to have to say what it that’s on your mind. Socialists are socialists. That their “monopoly”. Are you talking about the communes of the middle ages and such? Kropotkin and William Morris wrote on them. I’ve read them.

[Anonymous No.14986141]

>>14985686
That chart is fake news, idiot.

[Anonymous No.14986167]

>>14985672
Imagine believing that 70 years of growth is ‘short term’.

[Anonymous No.14986174]

>>14986130
It really isn't that hard to understand. The referent of socialism hasn't always been the enlightenment socio-politico-econonic abstraction that we all know and "love" today. That is, it is only in relatively recent years that the concept has become inexorably tangled with other enlightenment abstractions such as "distribution", "production", "democracy", "rights", "the individual" etc.

[Anonymous No.14986182]

>>14985947
I think he means post industrial revolution.

[Anonymous No.14986199]

>>14985666
>backward, agrarian
confirmed a progressive cock sucking ass slut

[Anonymous No.14986230]

>>14985696
99% of the right wing is against nazis. Get out of Reddit and talk to people more

>>14985743
People think socialism is a capitalist state with 50%+ in taxes, it's nor. Socialism is the proletariat owning the means of production

>>14986167
The standards of living in USRR were pretty bad. I don't get the point of growing when most of the people are miserable. Capitalism is proven to improve life standards of living even>>14986141
for the poor

[Anonymous No.14986234]

>>14985694
>it’s when there’s no state
So AnCap, gotcha

[Anonymous No.14986238]

>>14986230
Life standards even for the poor *

[Anonymous No.14986243]

>>14986230
The USSR improved the living standards of its people far more dramatically and far faster than any Capitalist country.

[Anonymous No.14986258]

>>14986243
>t. Joseph Stalin

In which ways it had improve? Capitalism improve it by gdp per capita. So maybe that's not a good measure for actual life quality, but it's the best we have.

[Anonymous No.14986264]

>>14986230
>99% of the right wing is against nazis. Get out of Reddit and talk to people more
I don't know why I even bother to include the link to the previous post if no one reads it
>>14985683
>but i wonder, how many people would not even consider themselves left wingers if they were intellectually honest?
Just like you don't have to be a commie to be left wing you don't have to be a nazi to be right wing
>How many consider themselves right-wing that aren't full nazis?
Was to point out how stupid the original post was but you went full retard and took it a face value

[Anonymous No.14986265]

>>14986230
>standard of living in the USSR was poor
lol no.
The USSR made huge jumps in standard of living. Literacy campaigns and industrialization were the main drivers of this. The average soviet citizen didn’t enjoy the luxuries that western people did, but compared to what they had before their lives had completely changed for the better.

>capitalism lifts people out of poverty.
Also no. What lifts people out of property is socialist or Keynesian economic policy. The nations responsible for the majority of global poverty declines were far from fanatical free market states.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/07/5-myths-about-global-poverty

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.14986273]

>>14986174
Ah. And so what about it?

>>14986234
Capitalism requires states. “Ancap” is an oxymoron. It’s just liberalism

[Anonymous No.14986274]

>>14986258
Median purchasing power.

[Anonymous No.14986280]

>>14986258
Literacy and industrialization. Here’s a book on Soviet urbanization and industrialization.

https://eastsidemarxism.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/robert-c-allen-farm-to-factory-a-reinterpretation-of-the-soviet-industrial-revolution-1.pdf

[Anonymous No.14986279]

>>14986230
Bernie describes himself as a democratic socialist and according to you he's not. So if he's not a socialist what is he? A capitalist?

[Anonymous No.14986301]

>>14986279
He's running on standard social democratic policies.

[Anonymous No.14986307]

>>14985686
What a fantastic state of affairs that billions of people are making over $2 a day and can afford to nourish themselves on bat soup and pangolin. Working out great.

[Anonymous No.14986309]

>>14986273
>Ah. And so what about it?
You're actually -- ontologically speaking -- a liberal. Your current program will not get you where you want to go. To fix this we must reexamine the enlightenment assumptions on which it is predicated.

[Anonymous No.14986314]

>>14986301
And social democrats are not socialist?

[Anonymous No.14986318]

>>14985636
y do so many people on this board have a butterfly trip?

[Anonymous No.14986321]

>>14986314
Social democratic policies are not socialist policies.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.14986326]

>>14986318
They’re crazy. Anonymous are all crazy

[Anonymous No.14986334]

>>14986321
You need to tell that to the Republican party and the American public.

[Anonymous No.14986351]

>>14986265
>didn’t enjoy the luxuries that western people did, but compared to what they had before their lives had completely changed for the better.

That's true but that's not that hard. They got to learn to write but lost the property and freedom of thought and religion. Russia was never that good to live might I say to keep the discussion honest.

>Keynesian economic policy
Elaborate it more, please

>>14986279
One may argue he's socialist, but socialism is not compatible with democracy nor private property. He's into taxing billionaires and wellfare state, but that's no different to neoliberalism

>>14986280
Russian education is fine. Industrialization was starting in the tsarism already

[Anonymous No.14986361]

>>14986141
Not an argument.

>>14986167
Under socialism there is no growth.

>Socialism has had many deep logical thinkers that have disassembled capitalism and their findings are usually proven right. Mousis, wrong.
Socialism has 0% success rate. Capitalism 100% success rate.

>>14986307
Compared to starving to death, yeah I would say it's great progress.

[Anonymous No.14986367]

>>14986265
>Also no. What lifts people out of property is socialist or Keynesian economic policy
Printing money does not create wealth. Redistribution does not create wealth.

Kill yourself imbecile commie.

>The nations responsible for the majority of global poverty declines were far from fanatical free market states.
Yes, quite literally free western capitalist countries is the reason.

[Anonymous No.14986378]

>>14986351
>socialism is not compatible with democracy
Socialism is just economic democracy. It's democracy as a way of life, not an every-4-years thing.

[Anonymous No.14986383]

>enlightenment false dialectics
yikes

[Anonymous No.14986387]

>>14986321
if you define socialism like the umbrella it actually is and remain consistent with it then yes actually they are socialist policies

[Anonymous No.14986395]

>>14986367
>Printing money does not create wealth. Redistribution does not create wealth.
Wrong in both cases. Read a book, retard.

[Anonymous No.14986397]

>>14986199
b-b-bootlicker!

[Anonymous No.14986401]

>>14986083
it doesnt warrant an argument

[Anonymous No.14986403]

>>14986387
The point is, social democratic policies do not challenge the very idea of an elite ruling class that owns the means of production.

[Anonymous No.14986406]

>>14986395
Pray tell, what wealth do you create when you redistribute from one person to another?

And then please tell me, what wealth do you create by increasing the money supply?

>>14986401
Not an argument. Stop posting.

[Anonymous No.14986408]

>>14986067
because socialism is a left-wing ideology?

[Anonymous No.14986412]

>>14986387
Just a stupid rhetorical game neocons try to play and fool the rubes.

Socialism is bad.
What about these policies that don't seem so bad?
Not Socialism.
So why don't we implement these policies?
Because they are socialist and socialism is bad
But you just said they weren't socialist
Well that's the way people use the word and we take advantage of a confusion that a fucking child should be able to realize

[Anonymous No.14986418]

>>14986199
When's the last time you worked a full day on a farm, keyboard commando?

[Anonymous No.14986420]

>>14986406
>Not an argument. Stop posting.
youre being very emotional right now

[Anonymous No.14986429]

>>14986314
Not, that's a big difference in being pro wellfare under capitalism and being against capitalism. Us socialists are into neoliberal policies, yet believing that's socialism. It's not.

>>14986378
That's not democracy. You're using the therm loosely, can you explain it better? Socialism is literally the workers owning the means of production. Any other brand of thought is not socialism

If you think capitalism is inheritlly bad system you are socialist, other than that you can label yourself another thing

[Anonymous No.14986437]

>>14986420
I am not. Please stop posting thank you.

[Anonymous No.14986439]

>>14986403
so they're not your specific marxist brand of socialism.
ill remember that when you want to claim tying your shoes is socialist because actually socialism goes back to classical greece and jesus.

[Anonymous No.14986443]

>>14986351
The Soviet Union enjoyed a great deal of freedom. Workers could criticize their managers and use state power to remove them and elections were essentially democratic until Khrushchev took power.

Here is a source to back up my claim about soviet free speech: https://www.docdroid.net/t9gG4jQ/thurston-robert-reassessing-the-history-of-soviet-workers-opportunities-to-criticize-and-participate-in-decision-making.pdf

When I say Keynesian economic policy I mean regulations and protections for workers. The article I linked earlier gives evidence of this in a few ways.

Industrialization in the USSR was faster and produced better outcomes than tsarist industrialization. The book “From Farm to Factory” that I linked earlier gives details on this and supports my claim that industrialization in the USSR was exceedingly quick and effective.

>>14986361
>socialism no growth commie owned xxxdddd

You don’t know what you’re talking about.

>>14986367
They were not western and most followed economic policies directed by the state. Capitalism could not and has not produced such reductions in poverty because it’s not in any capitalist’s interest to do that. It is, however, in a country’s interest to reduce poverty. The shittiest countries in the world are the ones raped by the IMF for capitalism. Read the Current Affairs article I linked if you want to stop being a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.14986450]

>>14986429
So you're saying the whole resistance in America to socialism is stupid since there is no real socialist party in American politics? Jesus I wish people thought that, then Bernie could get elected

[Anonymous No.14986451]

>>14986406
>Pray tell, what wealth do you create when you redistribute from one person to another?
You enable a broader base of consumption, which drives economic growth.

>And then please tell me, what wealth do you create by increasing the money supply?
You attach a penalty to hoarding money via inflation, which incentivizes investment in high-growth productive activity.

[Anonymous No.14986454]

>>14986437
i have no reason to stop posting until you acknowledge the goofy and pompous nature of the picture you posted

[Anonymous No.14986461]

>>14986406
>being this ignorant about economic policy
read a book loser.

[Anonymous No.14986463]

>>14986429
>Socialism is literally the workers owning the means of production
>If you think capitalism is inheritlly bad system you are socialist, other than that you can label yourself another thing

You realize these statements don't go together?

[Anonymous No.14986479]

>>14986403
You're a real socialist (or you're nazi).

>>14986412
The right wing polices the left don't like they label racist, sexist, homofobic, neoliberal. Same energy. Also you should not care about the pleb's thought, read the actual capitalist theorists, you might be surprised on the content. Just give it a try, better arguments against

[Anonymous No.14986484]

>>14986443
>You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Then please tell me about the wonderful growth of socialism, it simply can't be seen anywhere in any statistics. In fact quite the opposite can be seen. Mass death, mass starvation and economic stagnation at best.

>Capitalism could not and has not produced such reductions in poverty because it’s not in any capitalist’s interest to do that.
It is very much in every capitalists interest to do just that, more people with money means more potential buyers. Do you even economics? IMF is not capitalist by any means you retarded imbecile.

>>14986451
>You enable a broader base of consumption, which drives economic growth.
No you don't, you simply transfer one person earned wealth to someone else who had nothing to do with earning it. Consumption doesn't change because no new wealth has been created, thus no new consumption can be made. In fact you are more likely to hamper growth since people are less likely to save and invest knowing that their money will just be stolen at the end of the day.

>You attach a penalty to hoarding money via inflation, which incentivizes investment in high-growth productive activity.
Savings and investments are A and O in an economy, you remove the incentives to save and invest you no longer have a healthy economy. Inflation in itself is already a hidden tax on wealth, and doesn't cause incentive to invest in high growth but rather just more than whatever inflation is.

[Anonymous No.14986502]

>>14986429
>Socialism is literally the workers owning the means of production.
AKA democracy

[Anonymous No.14986506]

>>14986461
How do you increase wealth by redistributing? If I have two apples and is forced to give one away, has any new apples been created? You redistribute wealth and end up redistributing poverty.
Pray tell, how did it go when the Soviet Union confiscated the farmers harvest? Food surplus turned into food shortage.

[Anonymous No.14986520]

>>14986484
You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.14986528]

>>14986443
Thank you. I'll put it in my readlist because I like to read people i don't previously agree with.

>>14986463
I can't see the inconsistency. But I'm assuming that you're capitalist or socialist. What's the issue with that?

[Anonymous No.14986531]

>>14986484
>Then please tell me about the wonderful growth of socialism, it simply can't be seen anywhere in any statistics. In fact quite the opposite can be seen. Mass death, mass starvation and economic stagnation at best.
pre-70s Soviet Russia had an absolutely booming economy whose growth was unparalleled by any similar economy

[Anonymous No.14986535]

>>14986520
Not an argument.

You can only redistribute today's wealth, not future wealth, once people realize their wealth will be stolen from them, why would they keep producing? We have seen this exact scenario happen over and over again.

"We have all heard the old saying that giving a man a fish feeds him only for a day, while teaching him to fish feeds him for a lifetime. Redistributionists give him a fish and leave him dependent on the government for more fish in the future."

[Anonymous No.14986537]

[Anonymous No.14986543]

>>14986531
And yet Soviet Union was a gigantic poor authoritarian shit hole suffering from mass starvation even though they had a food surplus, mass death and misery. People were risking their lives to leave that place, whereas no one were risking their lives to go there.

[Anonymous No.14986548]

>>14986502
Democracy is the kind of the government that the people elect representants to rule one republic. I don't get how the workers owning the factory can match the definition of democracy. Again, you're using the term loosely. It means nothing in this context.

[Anonymous No.14986549]

All the hylics debating pro/anti socialism should kill themselves. You guys are all children, playing tic tac toe in the sand. Atheist losers. Butterfly is ok though.

[Anonymous No.14986556]

>>14986506
>pray tell

You sure like that phrase. Redistribution creates growth because a rich guy hoards money and does not spend much of it compared to what he has. It is more economically efficient to have workers get more money because they spend that money and create growth with it.

The Soviet confiscation of grain from kulaks led to collectivization which ensured the USSR never had a famine again. Collectivization meant industrial farming which was way more productive than many small landowners having peasants do manual farming.

>>14986484

I already gave you a book with Soviet industrial growth figures in it. It’s literally an entire book about Soviet industrialization.

>capitalism is when poor people get money

Imagine being this much of an absolute brainlet. A capitalist wants to pay his workers as little as possible so he can make the most money. It’s in the interest of the entire economy that his workers get paid more but he doesn’t give a shit about that, he cares about his own profit and is in competition with other capitalists. He has every direct economic incentive to not raise wages if he can avoid it.

>IMF is not capitalist
I want what you are smoking. The IMF’s job is to around and help western capital pillage the third world. That’s how neoliberal capitalism works.

[Anonymous No.14986557]

>>14986549
Who asked for your opinion? Kill yourself retard.

[Anonymous No.14986563]

>>14986543
>And yet Soviet Union was a gigantic poor authoritarian shit hole suffering from mass starvation even though they had a food surplus, mass death and misery.
Aside from the Holodomor what mass death and hunger are you talking about?

>People were risking their lives to leave that place, whereas no one were risking their lives to go there.
USSR received plenty of refugees during the war.

[Anonymous No.14986564]

>>14986528
>I can't see the inconsistency. But I'm assuming that you're capitalist or socialist. What's the issue with that?

Because it's easy to think capitalism is bad but not be for the state owning the means of production.

[Anonymous No.14986568]

>>14986528
That’s good to hear! J. Arch Getty is a historian I can recommend if you’d like to read more about the USSR and dispel western myths about it.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.14986578]

>>14986537
>economic growth
Like cancer. Fascism is simply liberalism on jihad

[Anonymous No.14986579]

>>14986564
>Private property of means of productions
>State owning all the factories and wealth distribution

[Anonymous No.14986589]

>>14986568
I'm highly interested in it. Thank you. I might not read all the books but might aswell take the time to read some articles

[Anonymous No.14986599]

>>14986556
Redistribution does not create any wealth, zip, nada, zero.

>A rich guys hoards money
No, wealthy people don't have 100 million in their bank account just sitting there. Their wealth is tied up in assets.

There is no efficiency in stealing from some and give it to other which had nothing to do with that wealth being created. What is so hard to understand that no new wealth is created by redistributing? Is it really that hard of a concept? You are more likely to redistribute poverty since the likelihood of future wealth to be produces decreases once you start confiscating peoples wealth. We have seen this time and time again throughout history.

Soviet confiscation simply led to farmers producing less, eating young cattle rather than raising them until they were old. Short term mindset because there is no future.

>A capitalist wants to pay his workers as little as possible so he can make the most money
False. A capitalist pays his worker an agreed upon wage based on, but not exclusively, how much value said worker can produce. The interest of the entire economy is to be as efficient as possible to reduce the price of transactions and goods. The minimum wage will always be 0.

The incentive to raise wages comes from the value a worker can produce. It's very simple economics, supply and demand.

>I want what you are smoking. The IMF’s job is to around and help western capital pillage the third world. That’s how neoliberal capitalism works.
IMF is not capitalist no matter how you feel.

[Anonymous No.14986603]

>>14986548
I'm not using the term loosely. Liberalism is the idea that "political" democracy can be separated from true (economic) democracy. Socialism embraces full democracy.

[Anonymous No.14986605]

>>14986589
http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/GTY-Penal_System.pdf

Here’s a good article about the gulags if you’d like to read it. It disproves some memes about them.

[Anonymous No.14986607]

Socialism is gay
Capitalism is gay
You are gay

[Anonymous No.14986611]

>>14986563
>Aside from the Holodomor what mass death and hunger are you talking about?
Oh let's see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#Soviet_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droughts_and_famines_in_Russia_and_the_Soviet_Union

>USSR received plenty of refugees during the war.
People risked their life to flee the USSR. Hell, people risked their lives simply to be able to read a western book, or discuss repressed ideas. In Berlin they had to build a wall to keep people in.

[Anonymous No.14986614]

>>14986579
State capitalism is still capitalism.

[Anonymous No.14986615]

>>14986599
Communism isn't about increasing prosperity or whatever, it's only about power and rightly so.

[Anonymous No.14986619]

>>14986615
May that be, the end result is always the same throughout history. Mass deaths, starvation and misery.

[Anonymous No.14986625]

>>14985729
>139 replies
>single post with an actual deconstruction of the book and author
>nobody even responds to it

[Anonymous No.14986631]

>>14986625
That just goes to show how useless the book is.

[Anonymous No.14986639]

>>14986599
What do you think assets are? Rich people put their money in stocks and other investments to keep their pile of money expanding. They very rarely just pour money into actual productive investments like industries.

I think it’s accepted economic fact that poor people put more of their income into the economy than rich people. This is just a fact. With regards to soviet grain confiscation everything you said is wrong and the book I am citing proved it wrong. Agricultural growth expanded both in area under plow and production after collectivization and industrialization.

>MUH VALUE

wrong again. A capitalist can’t pay a worker more than they produce, yes, but he wants their labor power for as little as possible. A capitalist’s interests are not the interests of the entire economy. He wants to make money and is not incentivized to care about the wellbeing of other capitalists - his job is to make sure everyone else goes out of business!

>IMF is not capitalist
Is this just your feeling? Capitalism is a system based on private ownership of the means of production and market exchange and the IMF serves to uphold and expand that system.

[Anonymous No.14986642]

>the /leftypol/ raid is STILL going
Is it because of the quarantine?

[Anonymous No.14986656]

>>14986625
How much people actually read it? I don't. I'm wrong to keep posting?

[Anonymous No.14986684]

>>14986639
>What do you think assets are? Rich people put their money in stocks and other investments to keep their pile of money expanding. They very rarely just pour money into actual productive investments like industries.
Do you know what stocks are you retarded imbecile? You are incredibly clueless, why the fuck do you waste time and energy in this thread arguing about something you know nothing about?

>I think it’s accepted economic fact that poor people put more of their income into the economy than rich people. This is just a fact
Let's say for arguments sake that is true, throwing away your money on lottery tickets, drugs ans fast food is hardly productive or efficient allocation and even if it was, does not justify stealing from some and give some of that to others. For reasons explained a hundred times already.

>but he wants their labor power for as little as possible.
Yes, and the worker wants to earn as much as possible.

>A capitalist’s interests are not the interests of the entire economy
No one ever claimed this, heard about something called the invisible hand? No of course you haven't, you are here posting non sense because you are a fucking moron.

>He wants to make money and is not incentivized to care about the wellbeing of other capitalists - his job is to make sure everyone else goes out of business!
False. First and foremost anyone selling a product must as an absolute first take into account what other people want and need, which is in their interest. His job is not to make sure everyone else goes out of business, for who will be left to buy his goods if they no longer have jobs? Competition decides winners and losers, in a free market, consumers, not employees, decide who wins and who loses by the use of their money.

IMF simply exists, just like many other institutions, to serve a group of rent seeking elites. Has nothing to do with capitalism.

[Anonymous No.14986685]

>>14986642
>how dare anyone I don’t like post here!

[Anonymous No.14986686]

>>14986619
>Mass deaths, starvation and misery.
These things are good, builds character. Afterwards state power is stronger than ever and can go against capital. Despite succumbing slightly China is now playing ping pong with the balls of the rest of the world thanks to their collectivism and state power.

Consider the DPRK which has resisted the occupation of a foreign power for a long time now and wield nuclear weapons.

Strong state power translates into strong geopolitical power and this is really what matters. America is going down the toilet because the state is merely the lapdog of transnational corporations, the state isn't bound to the people in any way. If they actually had more power they would also be held more responsible for what they use it for, instead there's nobody truly in charge, or rather the real power is concealed. Even when the people that founded the nation are going the way of the dodo the state merely shrugs and says they can't shut down borders or fix the shit tier birthrates.

In China the state can and do have influence over these things and since they explicitly have power then they must use it for the good of the people. Birthrates go to shit? State does something and tries more things if that doesn't work. Problem with virus? Shut that shit down, weld people into their homes if needed. Media is getting to degenerate and anti-Chinese? Arrest or execute the one responsible.

So it's really about power and it is not just some moral crusade for some utopia or whatever, but a real change in the power structure of a society. If some people have to die then so be it.

[Anonymous No.14986691]

>>14986684
>quoting Sowell
Holy fuck you're a retard.

[Anonymous No.14986694]

>>14986686
It's funny because the people like you, who during the most prosperous time in human history still couldn't manage to achieve anything somehow think you will be a five star general after your communist revolution has taken place. In reality you are among the first people to be liquidated.

>>14986691
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.14986703]

>>14986684
the invisible hand was a joke adam smith made that got out of hand.

[Anonymous No.14986710]

>>14986684
>insults
not an argument
>poor people spend money only on the lottery and drugs
You just don’t like poor people.
>the worker wants to earn as much as possible
Congratulations! You discovered class struggle! The capitalist wants to pay the worker as little as possible while the worker wants to be paid as much as possible. This was obvious to everyone.

>muh invisible hand
You haven’t even read Adam Smith, and sure as hell aren’t using the term correctly there.

Anything on any market has to have use value, this is obvious and you prove nothing by stating this. The capitalist wants his competitors to go out of business, if every capitalist could get rid of every other capitalist they would. That means less competition and more money for them.

>muh rent seeking
Rent seeking is the basis of capitalism. What do you call profit if not a form of rent seeking? You haven’t even been able to provide an alternate definition of capitalism because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

[Anonymous No.14986724]

>>14986694
Stop projecting your personal flaws onto me, I'm neither a loser nor do I have some retarded dream of becoming a general. I'm simlply telling you why state power is necessary. America will crumble against China and when it does you will know why.

[Anonymous No.14986739]

>>14986684

Not that guy but OMFG! Could you be a bigger moron.

1. Stocks are the sale of a company, NOT the sale of a consumable product. They are a chain letter that fucks up the ability of the market to manage the production and consumption of society's interdependent benefits.

2. NOT ONE FUCKING DIME OF A STOCK GOES TO THE COMPANY AT ANY TIME!
The IPO goes to the owners, not the company, and the sale of stock after the IPO goes to whoever sells it. IF the owners decide to invest the money they earn by selling stock in the company, they may, but they don't have to. If they do decide, then it still isn't the money from the stock that goes to the company; it is the money from the owners. Usually what happens is the money the owners get from the sale of the stock in an IPO goes to pay debt, and to pay back investors who DO actually invest in the company, which is of course cheating because the investors are supposed to be paid back from the proceeds of the company selling product.
The increase of stock price is just a Chain Letter that has to keep going, and none of that goes to the company either.

3. DIVIDENDS PAID TO SHAREHOLDERS ROB THOSE IN THE COMPANY OF THE MARKET VALUE OF THEIR WORK. Not one dime of dividend goes to a worker unless they own stock in their own company.

4. IT IS ILLEGAL FOR A COMPANY TO OWN ITS OWN STOCK.
Therefore, every decision to increase the value of the stock by the management and owners is a decision that is bad for the company and good for the stockholders.

You should leave this board immediately for not knowing this.

[Anonymous No.14986758]

>>14986710
>You just don’t like poor people.
And yet I am the one supporting a system where poor people have a chance to get out of poverty, whereas you simply want to make everyone equally poor.

>The capitalist wants to pay the worker as little as possible while the worker wants to be paid as much as possible. This was obvious to everyone.
And the solution to that is? A free market economy, et voila, problem solved.

>You haven’t even read Adam Smith, and sure as hell aren’t using the term correctly there.
>Anything on any market has to have use value, this is obvious and you prove nothing by stating this. The capitalist wants his competitors to go out of business, if every capitalist could get rid of every other capitalist they would. That means less competition and more money for them.
"Through individual self-interest and freedom of production as well as consumption, the best interest of society, as a whole, are fulfilled. The constant interplay of individual pressures on market supply and demand causes the natural movement of prices and the flow of trade." What is so hard to understand?

What the capitalist want for other is quite irrelevant, if he manages to produce a better product which leaves another company to go bust because they have an inferior product want, that is precisely what the free market intends, everyone is better off. See, in a free market you can't simply act like you do in communist societies, where some people can decide to just kill off others for their own gain, or any other reason they might have. In a free market you win through competition.

>Rent seeking is the basis of capitalism. What do you call profit if not a form of rent seeking? You haven’t even been able to provide an alternate definition of capitalism because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Captalism is simply an economic system where the means of production are privately owned. Profit is not rent seeking, please read a basic economics book before you start arguing about economics.

[Anonymous No.14986768]

>>14986739
Your understanding of stocks is severely limited, I recommend you read up on it before you post. Your post is completely irrelevant to the thread, kindly fuck off.

[Anonymous No.14986885]

>>14986758
Socialism has lead to the largest increases in quality of life. I want to make everyone have control over their own labor and benefit from their efforts as much as possible. Capitalism is incompatible with this.

>the solution to class struggle is more class struggle
lol no. The end of class struggle is the end of the capitalist class. Capitalists need workers, workers don’t need capitalists.

>taking a random quote of smith and passing it off as evidence
My entire argument this far has been that capitalist competition is not done in the interests of the whole economy and here you are supporting me by the look of it. Capitalists ‘win’ in competition by producing the same product cheaper most of the time - they want to avoid producing higher quality products if they can avoid it though because those cost more money.

Also profit is literally rent seeking. It’s unearned income That workers, not capitalists made.

[Anonymous No.14986904]

>>14985554
>no one's posted a picture of the author

[Anonymous No.14987036]

>>14986684

[Anonymous No.14987054]

>>14986904
his voice is even worse than his look

[Anonymous No.14987332]

>>14987054
Have you seen him interviewing Chomsky? One of the most insufferable things I've ever seen.

[Anonymous No.14987357]

>>14987332
yea its awful. robinson gets a little forgiveness from me since i went him>chomsky>classical anarchism but the guy still sucks pretty bad

[Anonymous No.14987749]

>>14985636
Even the Nazis were actually liberals now, apparently.

[Anonymous No.14987921]

>>14986904
>why yes, I am a pseud, how could you tell?

[Anonymous No.14987969]

>>14985666
This doesn’t remotely resemble economics

[Anonymous No.14988143]

>>14986110
>Memeber
anthropologist clown with no knowledge of economics that doesn't understand or study most of the shit he talks about
SIGN ME THE FUCK UP

[Anonymous No.14988151]

>>14986265
Decolonisation debunked this retarded myth of the USSR being a major driver in improvement of living conditions
post-colonial government with sensible liberal policy and a much worse of population and country were able to increase living standards at better speed without enslaving their population and killing millions in retarded man made famines

[Anonymous No.14988154]

>>14985766
Money is symbolized production.

[Anonymous No.14988169]

Is there a bigger joke than socialism in the intellectual world?
>Historical analysis is baby oversimplification and far from reality
>economic analysis has been completely destroyed, turns out capitalism is much better at socialism than socialism will ever be
>intellectual deadend full of pseuds, the only "marxist" worth a damn would be considered a fascist by the average socialist

[Anonymous No.14988204]

>>14988143
bullshit jobs is far better anyway

[Anonymous No.14988208]

>>14988169
the situationist international was pretty cool

[Anonymous No.14988234]

>>14988169
there isn't, most of today's """Marxists""" are not genuine Marxists at all, they are petty bourgeois moralists who complain that capitalism doesn't live up to the values it was founded upon that is commitment to liberty, equality and fraternity. they conveniently don't give a shit about the fact that Marx derided moralism in utopian socialism and rightly so. they probably do that because they are midwits who have never even engaged with Marxist theory but still praise it for its transgressive qualities and use it as a banner for their political activism. Marx would probably agree with Shapiro tha "facts don't care about your feelings" although he'd offer a different interpretation of the facts. reading Marx is 100x more pleasurable and enriching than reading regurgitated progressive "gotchas", there's literally no reason for anyone to engage with petty bourgeois rhetoricians like the guy who wrote OP's book

[Anonymous No.14988246]

>>14985676
so your telling me the answer is feudalism right?

[Anonymous No.14988413]

>>14985702
Neither cant you have large capitalism without central planning from a goverment that enforces it. Its kinda dumb to assume that capitalism is the "default" system of human organization and running a society.

[Anonymous No.14988429]

>>14986083
>yes let me just post some dumb quote of someone saying that socialism is emotional while capitalism is facts and logic while i tell everyone that they are not arguing

[Anonymous No.14988434]

>>14988413
I don't like to think that all socialists are retarded but you motherfuckers make it difficult.

[Anonymous No.14988449]

>>14986367
>Printing money does not create wealth. Redistribution does not create wealth.
And when did he claim such a thing? If we are talking about poverty, the redistribution of wealth in the general sense does indeed fight poverty. There are far more things that you should concern about than economy, because having high GDP and growing economy doesnt mean you will be living better. In fact the countries that grew the fastest in terms of economy in the history of mankind were Soviet Union and China.

[Anonymous No.14988501]

>>14988434
>claims that central planning is the goverment taking a action to enforce something
>explains that capitalism and the current structures of our society are also imposed by a central goverment
>"Wahh you socialists make it hard for me"

[Anonymous No.14988509]

>>14985599
>central planning
Expand your mind, cooperative ownership is better. Read up on syndicalism. Communism that works.

[Anonymous No.14988512]

>>14985609
No, it is NOT. Read theory. What you are describing is welfare capitalism. Socialism/Communism is when the means of production are not privately owned. Dumbass,

[Anonymous No.14988588]

>>14985554
>2020
>still regurgitating pre-Marxist Utopian socialism
Just why? I mean, the book mentions "justice"/"injustice" over 60 times. Here's Engels:
>Some people – the classical bourgeois economists – investigated primarily the ratio in which the product of labour was distributed between the worker and the proprietor of the means of production. Others – the socialists – found this distribution unjust and sought to remove the injustice by Utopian means. Both remained captive of the economic categories as they had found them.
>Then Marx appeared. And he stood in direct opposition to all his predecessors. Where they had seen a solution, he saw only a problem. He saw that what was involved here was neither dephlogisticated air nor fire-air, but rather oxygen; that it was neither a matter of simply recording an economic fact, nor of a conflict between this fact and eternal justice or true morality, but rather of a fact which was destined to revolutionize economics, and which provided the key to the understanding of the whole of capitalist production – for the person who knew how to use it, that is.
This is truly the ultimate proof that the middle classes are condemned to remain braindead morons for eternity, until the proletariat frees them from their condition. The most ironic thing that they always feel so much better than religious people too, while in fact they're doing the same thing, except still more retarded.

[Anonymous No.14988616]

>>14985554
I figured that out by reading the fountainhead

[Anonymous No.14988846]

>>14988588
based, I made a post here >>14988234 that pertained to the same issue

[Anonymous No.14988925]

>USSR was akshully realy good, it turned a 3rd world shithole into a so-so civilized country
Well, as a citizen of a sovietblock country they stole uranium from, I suppose I should be eternally grateful, I couldn't have find a decent translation of Eliot on the basis of him being a "vicious imperialist anti semite," but at least Ivan few thousand kilometres away can finally read about Pavlik Morozov. Subhuman ruskie vermin.

[Anonymous No.14988960]

>>14985609
So this is the true power.. of the socialist mind..

[Anonymous No.14988987]

>>14985704
This doesn't exemplify capitalism, it exemplifies specifically a state like the USSR
the Sears departments were still responding to upper management, just like Soviet factories and farms, they weren't really free to do anything

[Anonymous No.14989020]

>>14986243
Read why nations fail, it explains exactly why that was the case and then it stopped

[Anonymous No.14989022]

>>14988925
I like the USSR, but based post.

[Anonymous No.14989214]

>>14986026
>statism is a form of socialism

unironically kill yourself and take your retarded "socialism is when the goberment does stuff" argument with you

[Anonymous No.14989238]

I went into socialism because of Gramsci and the Frankfurt school rather than the economic focuses of Marx... but I don't know...

[Anonymous No.14989506]

>>14985666
100% confirmed this guy is not a scientist, but is larping as one. There are no 2 countries in the world that were ever identically situated, that doesn't mean comparison between the two is invalid. There were parts of Russia more civilized and wealthier than parts of America during the reign of the Tzar. It's just a fact that life under the Soviet Regime was inferior across many metrics, be they on average, or particular relevant localities.

But the most salient objection here is that his chosen metric is totally meaningless. Growth indicates none of what he implies. I bet various African states experienced thousandfold growth when they newly implemented basic agriculture techniques and moved out of mudhuts, that doesn't mean we should adopt their 'system' but it does mean that's where the largest growth is observed.

[Anonymous No.14989516]

>>14985666
>, the Soviet Union has transformed itself from an underdeveloped economy into a modern industrial state with a GNP second only to that of the United States
Surely this has nothing to do with them becoming an imperial power with numerous client states, it's due to the power of socialism!

[Anonymous No.14989549]

>>14986904
He's 27 or so, but looks over 40 (and that's not even based on his choice of attire, fine with me if he chooses to LARP as a Southern gentleman, pretty based in fact), and his English accent is fake as hell
... and he's preparing a PhD in sociology, the pseudest of pseud topics
(t. English dude)

[Anonymous No.14989623]

>>14986578
Fascism persecuted liberals you absolute retard. God why do commies always have to tell the most easy to disprove lies?

[Anonymous No.14989637]

>>14986549
>all of you are faggots, except for my boyfriend, he´s cool
Fuck off retarded nigger.

[Anonymous No.14989680]

>>14985554
I have a job, friends and sex. Ergo I'm not a radical.

[Anonymous No.14989683]

>>14988987
They're never free, they have to do what the laws of capital compel them to, even if in some circumstances this is dressed up in more formal freedom than in others.

>>14989623
Some muslims are muslims on jihad, and they persecute other muslims.

[Anonymous No.14989706]

>>14989683
>Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and the economic sphere
>The liberal century, after piling up innumerable Gordian Knots, tried to cut them with the sword of the world war. Never
has any religion claimed so cruel a sacrifice. Were the Gods of liberalism thirsting for blood?
That´s from the Doctrine of Fascism, by Benito Mussollini, you dishonest commie nigger

[Anonymous No.14989730]

>>14986885
>Socialism has lead to the largest increases in quality of life
A lie. Stop posting lies.

>The end of class struggle is the end of the capitalist class. Capitalists need workers, workers don’t need capitalists.
An extremely small portion of people are entrepreneurs, the vast majority relies on an employers for a job. You're saying you don't need employers, you are brain dead.

>this far has been that capitalist competition is not done in the interests of the whole economy
No one system is in the interest of the whole economy. Capitalism just happens to be the best for the whole economy, whereas socialism is only good for a small nomenclature and horrible for the other 99.99%.

>product cheaper most of the time - they want to avoid producing higher quality products if they can avoid it though because those cost more money.
Maybe, but if someone else comes along and makes better products, you have to adapt or you will die. The beauty of free market capitalism. Meanwhile in socialist countries you get whatever quality the government decides for you and have no other choice.

>Also profit is literally rent seeking. It’s unearned income That workers, not capitalists made.
Again you are retarded. Learn basic economics please.

[Anonymous No.14989738]

>>14988449
>If we are talking about poverty, the redistribution of wealth in the general sense does indeed fight poverty
This is false and has been proven to be false numerous times already, please stop spreading outright lies.

>In fact the countries that grew the fastest in terms of economy in the history of mankind were Soviet Union and China.
When you start from the bottom and compare to those at the top, yes you seem to grow faster, yet it's all artificial as we have seen.

Capitalism > Socialism, all day, everyday until the end of days. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.14989791]

>>14986904
Jewel tones and a balanced palette. Genuinely can't tell if he's avant-garde or just autistic. Or both.

[Anonymous No.14989909]

>>14989738
>This is false and has been proven to be false numerous times already, please stop spreading outright lies.
Yes, tell me how in a society where 64 people have more than 40% of the wealth and you have multiple empty homes and enough food for everyone that most of the poor cant simply afford despite working for a wage and taking that wealth, food and empty homes from them isnt going to help the population.
If anything, keynesian economics and the wealth redistribution methods that places like norway and denmark use are proof that its beneficial for society.

>When you start from the bottom and compare to those at the top, yes you seem to grow faster, yet it's all artificial as we have seen.
They arent really socialists in the meaning that they brought democracy to the work place and dont have a authoritarian regime or that their society is still one focused on accumulation of capital and profits. But their planned economy proved to really help the country and China is still the country that is growing the fastest in terms of economy.

>Capitalism > Socialism, all day, everyday until the end of days. Deal with it.
Kinda depends on what you understand with capitalism and socialism desu. If you think capitalism is all about having free market decide everything then you are pretty wrong to think that its the best system for a non-rich person. And almost any student in economics can tell you that.
Most of the working rights you have that make living bearable like, good minimum wage, 8 hour work day ,pensions, free education and work safety regulations became a norm because of multiple strikes and revolts organized by unions and socialist thinking.

[Anonymous No.14990061]

>>14989909
Planned economy != Socialism

[Anonymous No.14990132]

>>14985625
Marxism is a critique as much as it is a positive theory, associated with political action and so on. It is precisely the uncritical nature of capitalism, as in its simply moving forward, that makes it such that it deserves a position to understand its contradictions. Maybe you should read about it before you swallow hole what comes out of someone's face that you like on youtube.

Not even going to bother on socialism.

[Anonymous No.14990155]

>>14989706
Fascism and liberalism both aim to preserve capitalism. The former is simply a form which uses more forceful means to achieve that end, and only arises where such means are necessary (like in the great interwar crisis of capitalism).

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.14990162]

>>14987749
Pic.
Green is in the lower left corner. Where I am.

The nazis were state authoritarian capitalism. Not free market, but not actually socialist at all. The state had oversight on the business/owner class. Much like China now. Yes. China is fascist

[Anonymous No.14990171]

>>14989706
>>14990155
Or maybe "interwar" is not the best way to call it, because the two wars were without a doubt also parts of the crisis.

[Anonymous No.14990378]

>>14986361
> Socialism has 0% success rate. Capitalism 100% success rate.
saying shit like this just exposes you as a complete retard who has no knowledge of history

[Anonymous No.14990398]

>>14986684
> quotes by capitalists that accidentally advocate for communism
lol

[Anonymous No.14990400]

>>14988509
Would recommend you read Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell

[Anonymous No.14990409]

>>14985554
Socialism is a great theory, but the reality ain't much good. The reality is what counts.

[Anonymous No.14990436]

did anybody watch the vaush vs red pill debate just now? the red pill was saying he's a capitalist but he's not a neo liberal but what's the difference? aren't they both overlapping ideologies?

[Anonymous No.14990639]

>>14988512
>read theory
Go fuck yourself

[Anonymous No.14990666]

>>14990155
>Fascism and liberalism both aim to preserve capitalism
That´s a thing they have in common, but beyond that they aren´t remotely similar. Using the same logic I could say"hurr Fascism is socialism because both are statist, have planned economy and are autoritharians durr".

[Anonymous No.14990676]

>>14990162
>The nazis were state authoritarian capitalism. Not free market, but not actually socialist at all
>implying that socialism isn´t authoritarian
Let me guess, now you are going to give me a link to some schizo commie´s blog describing how the USSR was truly the land of the free

[Anonymous No.14990716]

>>14989238
In thate case you're just on the road to fascism

[Anonymous No.14990870]

>>14990061
When did i state that? All i said was that their planned economies helped the country grow which is the point that they mostly point out when they talk about "socialism" and to further make the point that the economy sucks.

[Anonymous No.14991079]

>>14990162
There was free market in Nazi Germany, it was just limited by the state, like in every country on earth.

>>14990666
You're completely off the mark. Socialism is not statist, it doesn't have a planned economy in any sense similar to fascism (the latter has a capitalist economy with some state involvement, perhaps on average more state involvement compared to liberal countries, but that's it -- the socialist economy on the other hand is the negation of the capitalist economy), nor is it authoritarian (there's no room for class dictatorship in the absence of classes).

[Anonymous No.14991341]

>>14991079
>with some state involvement
You lying nigger
"Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state"-Mussolini
>it doesn't have a planned economy
"Five-Year Plans, method of PLANNING economic growth over limited periods, through the use of quotas, used first in the Soviet Union and later in other socialist states."
>authoritarian (there's no room for class dictatorship
Are you unironically denying that the USSR or Mao's China were dictatorships?