/liberty/ - Liberty

impossible in the real world

>>68993

valueless

a scheme of the planning class to look virtuous while controlling the economy totally.

>>68993

not real communism™

>>68993

A science.

>>68994

>marxism leads to several revolutions in the real world

<the real world needs to bow down to my ideology

>>68993

Its own character mask

>>68999

This.

>>69004

Revolutions that lead to ruin of their countries and having a new ruling class that was just as oppressive.

LARPsism

>>69008

When did I say that I advocated reforms?

>administrators and managers were responsible to the people

You mean overglorified managers who were out of touch with the people?

Funny isn't the end goal a classless society yet you praise these managers?

>>69008

>That's a weird way of saying "ascending from a feudal peasent state into a space-faring superpower with the 2nd highest living standard within 30 years".

At what cost?

Compared to what?

>>69008

>ascending from a feudal peasent state into a space-faring superpower

With all those scientists that just happened to be form other countries which moved here voluntarily, we got on the moon first which proves our scientists were efficient. Capitalism DESTROYED.

>>69008

>when you fuck everything up and take credit for a preexisting trend of growth and industrialization that you slowed down

>>69004

>A science

Recognized only by leftists?

>>69008

>ascending from a feudal peasent state

Last I checked, serfdom was already outlawed long before the Russian Revolution, and most of the land was owned by independent farmers. In fact, the land distribution was more equitable than in Great Britain.

>into a space-faring superpower

The Russians shot junk into space while the Americans were busy making actual scientific progress.

>with the 2nd highest living standard within 30 years".

Yeah, they only suffered three major famines in that time. Did all other countries except the US suffer four famines or what? They had famines in 1921, 1933 and 1946. But hey, after that, they FINALLY escaped the curse of famine and only had to deal with regular shortages.

>>69004

A self-refuting Ideology *sniff*

>>69069

>At what cost did Europe attain its unprecedented industrial revolution? Was that not through centuries of exploitation, slavery, famines and genocides of other cultures?

No. Economic growth took off with the Industrial Revolution, but its effects weren't obvious for a long time because population numbers were growing simultaneously. It was the Malthusian Law that caused all the suffering during the Industrial Revolution, nothing else.

Colonization wasn't profitable. Almost all colonies wrote red numbers most of the time, I think Katanga was one of the few exceptions. If anyone got more prosperous as a result of colonization, it was the colonies themselves, who got capital and technology from the imperial powers. Without the cruel oppression of the white man, Africans would still be eating cooked virgins and curing tuberculosis by cooking more virgins.

>This paper states that Soviet growth was indeed exceptional:

And according to everything else, the USSR suffered famines, shortages, had a shitty public morale, and was technologically inferior to the Western World. Doubling the number of cars per capita in your country is nothing to be proud of when everyone else is already sitting in hovercars.

>>69069

>hurr southerners bad

lol butthurt

>if not though the violent overthrow

There was a violent revolt, but unlike the soviet union there weren't 3 separate famines in the space of a quarter century.

>>68993

a virus of a mind

>>69076

>So you openly admit that material conditions during rapid industrialization usually has negative side effects but still blame socialism for it?

I'll openly admit that nobody should take Malthus seriously on anything. That goes for you and that guy.

>colonies weren't profitable

As a whole, not really. Colonization was profitable for the State and those that got the monopoly on importing goods. Nobody will seriously argue that international relations are detrimental. In the long run, Colonization hurt those relations even more.

>Africans would still be eating cooked virgins and curing tuberculosis by cooking more virgins

Again, that guy is a retard. It costs far less effort and resources to gain a far greater net benefit by trading peacefully.

>>69073

>You are right, and this course was actually continued by Lenin in the NEP, you need to have proper capitalism before socialism. However, feudal remnants and superstructure still remained: Most of the country was illiterate, and most villages were still communally organized in the form of the Obshchinas. It surely wasn't as a developed as most European powers. See also my answer above.

In other words, at best, Lenin inherited an ongoing trend.

>The 1933 one which was caused by drought and sabotage is the only one that is somewhat an argument

A healthy economy can deal with a drought. Just import food, instead of exporting it like a retard, as Stalin did. He even bought industrial capital for that money. As far as I'm concerned, that settles the question of whether the government was to blame for the famine. The theory that Kulaks sabotaged the economy is so unsubstantiated that it doesn't deserve refutation.

>the first date you mentioned was during the Civil War

Yes, during its end stages, when the Whites were as good as defeated, and it was preceeded by a number of economic policies that Lenin partially took back with the New Economic Policy. Lenin also exported grain later during the famine, instead of saving it up for future """droughts""". The Mughals and the Incas both knew how grain storage worked but not Lenin? Come on.

>the third one right after WWII, Ukraine was a main fighting ground and once the agricultural infrastructure was built up again, the famine quickly diminished.

It wasn't just the Ukraine, it was in several regions. And once more, the government exported grain.

Of course, the final nail in the coffin is our knowledge of economic laws, but judging by your flag, there's no telling you about them.

>Has more fertile ground, had a lower population, and 100 years of organic development without ever being under existential threat.

I wasn't talking about the US. The focus of my comment was on all the other countries on the globe, most of which didn't have as many bad famines as Russia, with the exception of China, which just so happens to have been communist, too. As I always say, it's suspicious that the kinds of droughts that create major famines have only sought out communist countries during the last century.

>>69076

>So you openly admit that material conditions during rapid industrialization usually has negative side effects but still blame socialism for it?

I explicitly didn't admit that. I said nothing to that effect. I pretty much only mentioned overpopulation, but blaming rapid industrialization for overpopulation is just silly.

>Both USSR and Maoist China had a massive increase of population.

Yes, at a time when agricultural methods have already become far more efficient. The yield per acre has increased more than tenfold since the Industrial Revolution. Population numbers that could've caused poverty in 1850 couldn't do so in 1950.

>Also, "nothing else" seems to be rather simplistic, also labor rights and welfare states were non-existent. It's also false to blame, for example, unemployment on the Malthusian catastrophe, it's effects were later palliated but unemployment is nothing but a artifical phenomenon of capitalism due to the establishment of a labor market. There wasn't unemployment before, and we still have unemployment today. In almost all cases of actually-existing socialism unemployment was abolished.

Are you even aware that this narrative is not at all new to me, or to any other capitalist? Labor rights (as you call them) and welfare are harmful, and involuntary unemployment doesn't exist in a free market.

>Also, I just love the hypocrisy: Suddenly the means justify the end, disregarding centuries of enslavement, famine and genocide

Do I really need to write a disclaimer just in case? That it had a beneficial effect, in the longterm, doesn't mean I believe that every aspect of it was justified.

>slavery

Which the blacks happily participated in, and the Europeans eventually sought to prohibit for the first time in the history of mankind.

>In the end, wouldn't you admit that these former colonial countries would have evolved somewhat organically through mutual trade without the need for colonialism?

Probably depends on the colony. In India, that might've been possible. All of sub saharan Africa, hardly, as these people didn't even understand how property rights worked.

>What is your source for that claim?

Books by Ludwig von Mises and Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. Leftism, and either Liberalism or Omnipotent Government, but forgot which of the two.

>Not really, even liberal historians like Arch Getty or Kotkin don't follow this narrative.

So they dispute this?

>And according to everything else, the USSR suffered famines, shortages, had a shitty public morale, and was technologically inferior to the Western World.

Not sure how you could've misunderstood me that badly. I didn't even say anything against the rapid development of the USSR (for the sake of argument), I was saying that in any case, the USSR was shit, and it always remained shit.

>>68999

Since when are venture capitalists spreading Marxism?

>>69069

>Was that not through centuries of exploitation, slavery, famines and genocides of other cultures?

No. Those things had nothing to do with it.

>Do you think the industrial revolution would have happened if Europe didn't have access to the extracted net value of its colonial possessions?

Yes. Colonialism cost more than it got back.

>>69102

I remember there being a book by Antony C. Sutton detailing how Wall Street helped fund the Soviet Union.

>>69097

>hurrdurr export of grain

You realize that the Soviets were advocating for the gold standard only to get thrown under the bus by the UK yet they needed capital to build up their industry? The UK intentionally demanded grain for exchange of tool necessary for industrialization, and the harvest of 1931 was a huge surplus, so they exported it. The grain exports stopped once the extent of the shortage became known to Stalin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMBJ_nQ4sTA

>lmao just import it

They were sanctioned kid.

Honoestly the rest of your post is just so fucking bad that it is not worth refuting, it's the usual cultish stuff ("involuntary employment doesn't exist in the free market") that no respectable economist outside of Libertarian think tanks financed by the Koch brothers takes seriously, and of course your sources are Mises and all that shit and no historians.

>>69117

>No. Those things had nothing to do with it

<it wasn't REAL CAPITALISM

Then I'm at liberty to say that all the flaws of the USSR have nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism?

>Yes. Colonialism cost more than it got back

You are ignoring all the socio-economic forces that were facilitated through colonialism that led to capitalism, such as the founding of large trading companies. India under the East India Company is basically AnCapistan.

>>69127

<it wasn't REAL CAPITALISM

Not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying it was a drain on Western economies overall rather than fostering their growth.

>You are ignoring all the socio-economic forces that were facilitated through colonialism that led to capitalism, such as the founding of large trading companies.

Because it has nothing to do with the point about 'extracted net value'.

I'm saying there is no extracted net value. The colonies were, overall, a drain.

>>69007

>Revolutions that lead to ruin of their countries and having a new ruling class that was just as oppressive.

It's not to say it is a good thing or to infer any merit of marxism/socialism/communism but all "commie" nations basically launched into heavy industrialisation, increased prosperity and power. USSR and Communist China are the best examples. Literal undeveloped, fuedal shitholes being constantly pushed around by the world. Rapidly developed into powerful and industraliased nations. Laying the groundwork for their global power and continual prosperity of the present day.

>>69204

Ever considered that they were just carried along by the trend in the developed world? When everyone else gets richer, even a bum can get a fine dinner out of a trashcan.

>>69204

>prosperity of the present day

>russia

pick one

>>69204

Do you choose to disregard all the failed centrally planned industrial projects, or genuinely do not know about the unfinished/abandoned Soviet projects all over the Eastern Bloc?

>>69004

>A science.

haha

just like theology

America doesn't have a Marxism problem, American has a kike problem.

Remove the kike, all other problems will fix themselves.

>>69417

>>69417

But there are problems in countries without the jews as well, like NK and China. Explain that shit to me.

>>69419

But those countries have a lot of Marxists; he's saying America doesn't.

At least, non-Jewish Marxists.

Americans like capitalism more than socialism anyway.

>>69125

>no respectable economist

Why do leftists always pull this shit? Create a clique, force anyone who disagrees out, claim that only your clique is right, then slander them as being "not respectable." Same shit happened with racial science.

It's shit folks

>>69477

>If we abolish social programs, the money that went into them stops existing

>Poor people are worse off when they don't have to pay 10% TVA on every purchase

>Tax rates of 50% for the middle class don't harm economic prosperity at all

>>69479

>Don't care. The incentives of why rich people do things don't matter to me because I'm not rich.

As they're doing the most capital investment, you should care. If we siphon the resources of everyone above a certain income level, capital accumulation stops dead in its tracks. Capital won't even get renewed anymore. You know what this means? Factories break down and never get replaced, scientific research stops entirely and scientific expertise is lost, infrastructure degrades, and the fucking internet dies.

You can play around wiht the income levels at which you want taxation to reach 100%. It will always hold true that this will lower the rate of capital accumulation. Mix it with a welfare state, and you even create an incentive to be unproductive. There is no healthy level of interventionism, only levels that are more or less harmful. In this regard, interventionism is worse than poison, as most poisons have a healthy dose.

>>69484

>I want as much shit as I can get, and the more of it that comes for free and the less I have to work for any of it, the better.

Then you want the rich entrepreneur to succeed without any government intervention that allows him to make more for less effort. You will never get more free stuff from the government than the rich as you will never have the lobby power they do. You're being tossed crumbs while fucking yourself in the ass thinking you're sticking it to them.

>>69484

ur stupid

>>68993

juvenile

A science

>>69551

0/10

>>69477

God leftist counter signals are so so bad.

>>69714

>when I say "not an argument" at my enemies THEY LOSE

>>69004

How can marxists think marxism is a science when their ideology necessitates relativism? Or did you redefine it like the jews you are…

>>69488

No, because the rich boy succeeding has nothing to do with me succeeding. The government forces the rich to be more charitable than they actually want to be, so the charity argument is nonsense. I like that the government is forcing rich people to give their stuff to me and I hope they keep it that way + do more of it.

The reality is that without the government doing that I would be worse off, just based off if I crunched the numbers in terms of the welfare I get every month versus what I pay in taxes, I get more in net benefits than I would if I even had 0% taxes. Keep in mind I get it all back at the end of the year anyways.

There is nothing you can possibly say to me that could convince me that it's in my own self interest to do anything that enriches rich people's lives instead of mine, nor that I shouldn't do everything possible to fuck their shit up, fam. For one it's fun, and two it helps me in every possible way.

>>69829

First of all, you're a parasite with no dignity.

>But I don't care, jokes' on you!

And that is exactly why you have no dignity, my degenerate friend. In case you failed to notice, pigs look pretty content too when they wallow in mud. Does that make them exalted? I think not.

Second, you don't understand how economic progress works. Free the market of its shackles, and within thirty years, you can collect hoverboards from the trash. You assume, instead, that there is a cake whose size is forevermore fixed and all you can do is demand a larger slice. That, or your time preference is just ridiculously high, which would be even more sad.

>>68993

complete trash and mental aids.

fake and gay

>>68993

Marxism.

>>68993

>A dream

And then you wake up.

>>69829

>>69484

>>69948

He probably has such a high IQ he understands the subtle nuances of pickle rick

>>69948

This is what is done with schools and hospitals. He's right in a way.

The negative effects caused by high prices might cancel out the gains from increased distributive efficiency.

>>69954

You know he was talking about the calculation-problem, right?

>>69964

Why do thinks happen instantly in the capitalist system, but realistically in the socialist system?

And it can be argued that price increases are not much better than shortages. When there are shortages of healthcare in the UK they ration based on *need* rather than *ability to pay*, which also keeps prices down.

>>69980

There's a bureaucracy acting as the middle man, and have you ever seen a bureaucracy that doesn't add in a whole bunch of red tape to everything? In capitalism, the rancher loses some of his cattle and charges higher prices, leading to grocers, restaurant owners, and butchers to buy less and charge more for what they do buy. The increased prices signal to entrepreneurs that people need more cows, and they alleviate the shortage. Simple, fast, and efficient.

>>69981

>healthcare

http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html

It's not capitalism's fault that doctor's are expensive.

>>69964

>>69985

This right here.

>>68993

Fiction disguised as non-fiction.

>>69985

>the rancher loses some of his cattle and charges higher prices

That's not going to happen. If he could charge a higher price he would have done that already.

>leading to grocers, restaurant owners, and butchers to buy less and charge more for what they do buy.

Same with this.

I don't think your model works. The actual discovery of shortages, raising of prices etc takes a number of realisations and discoveries in the economy

>>70050

>That's not going to happen. If he could charge a higher price he would have done that already.

He can, because there's a shortage now. He can charge more because beef has gotten more rare, so to speak.

>Same with this.

Same as above with this. The price structure has changed, because supply and demand have changed.

>>70051

>He can, because there's a shortage now. He can charge more because beef has gotten more rare, so to speak.

He doesn't know there's a shortage just because some of his cattle died.

>Same as above with this. The price structure has changed, because supply and demand have changed.

They don't know they can raise prices just because they're paying more.

Why is nationalism lumped in with authortarian viewpoint on that graph. Globalist in the current sense is anything but freedom and liberty. being anti globalist is freedom. globalists are the ones pushing facism and far right/far left viewpoints.

>>70065

More specificly I am for a weaker federal government and a much stronger state level handling of affairs. but the idea that nationalism IE not globalism is authoritarian dangerzone on its own is baffling.

>>70062

>He doesn't know there's a shortage just because some of his cattle died.

Of course he needs a while to realize that, but the information flow isn't any better when it's mediated by three layers of bureaucrats. The cattle farmer doesn't even need to know that there's a shortage, it's sufficient if he gets more offers than usual.

>>70065

Nationalism is authoritarian, but not all self-professed nationalists are. Patriotism is not authoritarian at all, even chauvinism doesn't have to be authoritarian, but nationalism is. I think many nationalists are just patriots or chauvinists but don't know it.

The problem with nationalism is that it puts the nation over the individual, his family, his home, and his religion. This tends to distort the culture, and it's just a messed up ranking in general. More so because nations are often very arbitrary, whereas everyone knows where his home is.

So yeah, I'm not a fan of nationalism, even though I consider myself both a patriot and a chauvinist.

>>70073

>all these countries were much better off; they said so themselves!

>why would they lie?

>nevermind the poverty, disease, starvation, and millions of deaths

>because they didn't happen

>also capitalism did them

>in our countries

>while we were in charge

>of everything

>and totally much better equipped to prevent that stuff than we had been before, we promise

>damn capitalism

>>70092

Cuba seems to be sponsoring abortions and even killing newborn children to better their health statistics. Not to mention that health statistics are biased towards public investment.

Socialist countries also tend to get far better rankings than they deserve on quality of life indexes because of their education systems. If your country has eliminated illiteracy and everyone is schooled for fifteen years, shit like the Human Development Index will automatically call it "highly developed". Doesn't matter if people cross the border to get their car fixed and the only three books they're allowed to read are all dissertations on historical materialism written by General Kwukwu Motebe.

Just some general thoughts, I do not know much about these two cases in particular.

>>70093

Not really related to the conversation but I have noticed this. It's really hard to discuss healthcare in a free market with people because of the health statistics of highly socialized countries, doesn't help that people consider America a free market in healthcare when it's far from free and could be better described as a cartelized market but that's besides the point.

There is also a really good point that government controlled and distributed healthcare discourages immigration into the country. It only really works in a stable unchanging country that favors highly skilled and highly productive individuals to support government healthcare. Why else would socialized countries restrict immigration only to what the government to people who they deem as having 'necessary' skills.

Just had an argument with someone about this and I was trying to reconcile them to the fact you can't have a very large welfare state with open and free immigration, which we both agreed was good… The conversation was frustrating and a waste of time.