/liberty/ - Liberty

How did you reach that conclusion is beyond me. "Really existing socialism" was making fun of the practice, not the theory. It was the people's way of saying "but this is not real communism!" Let there be no mistakes, communism was widely supported in the Eastern Bloc, and most dissent was internal (i.e., you are doing communism wrong), not external (i.e., communism is wrong).

>Positive strawman is a thing that sounds very nice and isn't very representative of reality

>negative strawman is a thing that sounds very bad and also isn't very representative of reality

shitpost.

>>73863

This.

>>73831

The British empire is real capitalism. Is it not?

>>73941

The British empire practices mercantilism.

>>74309

Mercantilism is a capitalistic policy. You can't equate laissez faire policy with capitalism.

>>74366

Everything is capitalism from what I've been lead to believe.

>>74366

Per Marxism, mercantilism exists before capitalism.

Me, I consider the fact you can trade properties mean you have capitalism already.

>>74373

When someone says "not real socialism", it stops at that. When someone says "not real capitalism", they usually follow it up with "here's why, here's how that's causing problems, and here's what you do to fix it".

>>74373

I'm just pulling your fucking leg, but you always like to pull a strawman (our methology) and claim that the other side is the one's being retarded. Have you ever considered that the exact same methology actually applies to your ideology. All you do is just circlejerk.

(this post legitimacy makes me want to kill you for being so full of shit)

>>74373

You just disproved your whole spectrum argument. How can there be a spectrum if there is not a degree of socialism?

In order to make something as capitalist there is a set of statements that align with the statement of whether something is capitalist or not. The same applies to Socialism.

Is capitalism private ownership of the means of production. There is a set of conditions that make one capitalist. Capital in the form of money. Things both material and immaterial that are distinguished as a form of property. It goes on. If some of these statements are false then it is debatable if it is capitalism or not. Other systems tend to have similar systems so it is important to consider those systems and see if they adhere to those systems more than Capitalism. Why is it not good to do the same to apply the same mythology to socialism.

Why cant the same apply to socialism. You just said that there are other systems such as Mercantilism, Feudalism why is that not also apart of this spectrum that you speak of? There are others like Slave systems, certain forms of depositism, and such that are completely ignored in your spectrum or that it would somehow be defined as socialistic or capitalistic of varying degrees?

This methodology does not make it useful for dialog.

I view certain countries as being capitalist or socialist or feudalistic, or slave, or mercantilism by if they meet more of given criteria of a certain system more than another. While you seem to view it as either More capitalist or more Socialist whether they have a degree of certain criteria without considering that those criteria can also apply to other systems.

>>74506

>Have you ever considered that the exact same methology actually applies to your ideology.

You don't apply an economic methodology to an ideology, you apply it to the real world, and that's how you get your ideology in the first place. Ideally.

>All you do is just circlejerk.

Doesn't follow from what you just said.

>(this post legitimacy makes me want to kill you for being so full of shit)

Do you want to talk about these feelings?

>>74373

The rest is a fucking straw and you know it. USSR is socialist with bureaucratic elements, no rational person says otherwise.

Just look at the above statement and you can tell my mythology is alot more scientific. Terms are defined clearly and then material examples are used to determine if that examples fit the description. You know the term Capitalism and Communism is not based in reality as there no empirical example used that is used can empirically describe it.

Why is it in economics people make up shit and then measure it under actual existing systems. Why can't they observe a system as it is as a defined system and then measure other systems in relation to that. Why is there pure crap to begin with? Why can't we just do that? Why ideals have to be a thing?

>>74513

You know you are just full of shit.

<Have you ever considered that the exact same methology actually applies to your ideology.

here is what I mean by that.

>real socialism

For the love of God, stop saying that. Every Communist I've ever met thought in terms of a spectrum, with communism (or anarchocommunism) on one end, and total socialism on the other. In between are things like State Socialism, market socialism, Meutalism, then Crony Capitalism , then the libertarian capitalism, and then comes total capitalism. Both extremes cannot be implemented, pure Communism for contingent reasons (it's conceivable, just unrealistic), total Capitalism because in order to uphold private property one needs the state on one form or another. The last part is simplified, but I hope you get the idea.

Capitalists, on the other hand, don't think in these terms. To them, if a state is not Capitalism, it's Socialist, (just look at Venezuela, and United states Obama is a socialist) period. Discounting other modes of production like feudalism. And the definition of Capitalism is invariably extremely narrow. Weirdly, this is the one case where Righties think in terms of absolutes and libertines (libertarian socialist) don't, and we're usually the hyperprecise ones that hate any and all compromise.

When we say that something wasn't real socialism (not that we use that exact wording), it means that the system is not at the point where you cannot realistically move further towards ideal socialism. Hence, it's not a proper argument if you point out that some communist nation is deficient in some regard. We will say: Yes, this deficiency exists, but it has nothing to do with this nation being socialist, because it isn't fully socialist. Which is already a big concession to your methodology. Our case for socialism is a priori, we don't need examples and we don't need to disprove counterexamples. Instead, it must be attacked on a logical basis.

I'm disregarding the fact here that we generally don't take a holistic view of the economy. The economy can be extremely free in some regards, but socialized in others.

Our use of "not real socialism" (or what rightists summarize as "not real capitalism") is not the same as when a capitalist says the United States wasn't "real capitalist". It's ridiculous because his argument as to why it wasn't capitalist misses the point. If the USA or Britannia, were "real capitalist" by his definition, that wouldn't change a thing. It might make a profound difference by his own theories, but not by ours. To us, it sounds simply like shifting the goalposts, and usually, it is. The Russian Imperial empire used to be an example of functioning capitalism until an impending civil war, an impending famine, and commies hit the country. I left out the influx of soviets and workers beginning to organize in communes

It was the same with almost all other Capitalist nations. They were all perfect examples of Capitalism at work, until they weren't.

>Venezuela used to be an example of functioning socialism,

(source)

The fact that I had to write this shit down is why I tell people so often to learn methodology. Learning economics while being unaware of methodology is like philosophizing without knowing the laws of logic or lifting heavy ass weights without a solid footing. It may look impressive at first, but then you break your ankle and spend six months in physiotherapy and lose all your muscle mass.

You see how disingenuous this is and how this rubs your nerves in the wrong way.

>>74515

I just fucking said that you got a straw man of me and many other leftists. We don't believe in absolutes fucking fag.

>Because to know what to measure, or how to categorize economies, you already need a theoretical framework. Otherwise, you're just comparing random graphs to each other.

I won't form a theoretical framework that says that gravity works different than what I want and then try and to conform gravity to do what the framework says.

>>74517

That said economics is not a science.

>>74518

At least in its current state it is not.

>>74520

Fine then, fuck you.

You never argued in good faith anyway.

>>74428

Pretty much this.

>>74516

>When we say that something wasn't real socialism (not that we use that exact wording), it means that the system is not at the point where you cannot realistically move further towards ideal socialism.

If that's the case, why are these kinds of claims never backed up by reasoning? Whenever someone picks out an example from the mass grave of failed socialist states, and deconstructs it, I don't see any methodology from the responding leftists. They squak "not real socialism!" and leave it at that. If pressed, they might say something about the government being corrupt. Never have I heard someone say, "Well, this stopped being 'real' socialism here, when the central planners made this mistake in fundamental economics when they should have made that one instead." I've yet to see this methodology of which you seek.

>>74521

You can suck my dick on good faith.

Fuck good faith with socialists, they all play the language game then ban you when you point that out.

>>74516

Ah, now I got it. Didn't read it before. You did a piss poor job mirroring my own argument, though.

>>74530

>real socialism was JUST about to work but [anti-commie faction] got involved and fucked it up for us

how is that different then

>Well, this stopped being 'real' socialism here, when the central planners made this mistake in fundamental economics when they should have made that one instead.

If you just replace [anti-commie faction] with central planners that are revisionists. It is usually leftists that learn from previous failiers and adjusts according to the material conditions that they live in.

>>74559

Leftists such as Krushchev and Deng Xi Peng right?

Cuz it's those guys who adjust regarding the material conditions they live in.

inb4 REEEEEEEEEEEE revisionists

>>74560

Shut the fuck up. You shut the FUCK UP!!!!!!!!!! How dare you think that you know what's better for yourself and your family than comrade Kruschev? Don't you know that he cares for you? Don't you know that he loves you? Why do you reject his love? What kind of greedy, selfish, capitalist, borGOYzee, capitalist pig do you have to be to ask for more bread than the 3 crumbs allotted to you? Unbelievable.

Accept Lenin into your heart.

>>74578

>/pol/ false flagger

>>74530

>>74559

>>74560

>>74582

Did you all got banned from /leftypol/ and came here to shitpost discuss?

>>74584

Qaddafi did nothing wrong.

>>74373

That article you sent. You know that mathematics isn't a complete representation of reality and they do have models that have interesting concepts. If economics is the science of human interaction and he said that The Austrian Model is based on Priori evidence along with the philosopher of John E.Cairnes methods then that means that these axioms of human interaction that you propose to be true must be preformed by every human. Apparently the only validation for that is if a general onlooker affirms that axiom to be true. What human actions are a axiom in your epistemology? How do you know that everybody is going to react the same way based on that axiom?

It's like I'm arguing with meta-physicists.

>>74700

Some anons went through the trouble of listing all the major praxeological laws and how they're derived, starting with the action axiom. I hope someone has that screenshot somewhere.

I might give a longer response tomorrow. Sorry I can't be more exhaustive now.

>What human actions are a axiom in your epistemology?

The action axiom is our starting point. It says that every human being must act. The proof is that you cannot claim the opposite without undergoing performative failure, as the very act of trying to disprove the action axiom would affirm it, being an action.

From the fact that human beings act, certain other praxeological laws follow. Human beings act to remove the most urgent felt uneasines, otherwise they wouldn't act, yet they do act. From this, it follows that each additional unit of the same good will be held in lower esteem, as it's put to a less urgent use than the first, which is what we call the law of diminishing marginal utility. They value present goods over future goods, other things equal, otherwise, they likewise wouldn't act; this is what we call time preference.

>How do you know that everybody is going to react the same way based on that axiom?

We don't, not solely on the praxeological laws, but some psychological assumptions are enough to fill the blanks, and most are very trivial. For example, the disutility of labor is not a praxeological law, but a psychological assumption. That human beings have an interest in staying alive and not in starving to death, likewise, is a psychological assumption. There is nothing puzzling about suicide from a praxeological perspective. That they are capable of cooperation and don't immediately beat each other to death at first sight is also a psychological, not a praxeological assumption.

>>74714

How do you define Acting?

>you cannot claim the opposite without undergoing performative failure, as the very act of trying to disprove the action axiom would affirm it, being an action.

What do you mean by this, it just seems like you are just trying to deflect criticism in a disingenuous way.

>>74722

>How do you define Acting?

Purposeful behavior. There is not much to define.

>What do you mean by this

You cannot do anything to refute the action-axiom, except through acting. However, if you act, then you affirm that human beings do indeed act, i.e. engage in purposeful behavior.

>it just seems like you are just trying to deflect criticism in a disingenuous way.

What criticism? I don't think you have posted any. You have merely asked questions.

>>74731

Can you explain why human action resulted in the large support for the reds in Russia during the civil war? Can you explain that human action resulted in forms of mutual aid? Why do people act against the "Crony" Capitalist system via volentary association in the form of Unions? Why do people act in ways you don't expect?

I don't see how this pathology is useful?

>>74812

I thought the prevailing narrative about the Russian civil war was that vanguardism was necessary to mobilize the masses rather than a bona fide revolution of the proletariat.

>>74814

A large sum also supported the blacks which were also communists.

>>74827

And there is your ideological block. A lot of people supported the reds because they were anti-war and they already had Soviets which the reds promised they will be more democratically managed by getting rid of city councils.

There was also many Red factions such as the left SRs but they got rid of sectarianism to fight the whites and the other 14 nations that all allied against them to keep Russia in the war.

The only people really supporting the Whites and the Black Hundereds were the well fed cossaks, the land owners, and the allied nations which all organized against the "Jewish Bolsheviks" via sending tens of thousands troops in and disseminating propaganda. The supporters of the whites was in the minority.

>>74812

>I don't see how this pathology is useful?

It seems like you're trying to find a flaw in anything he's saying but really grasping at straws that don't even really exist. People act in order to exchange a current state of affairs with what the individual sees as a more preferable state of affairs. It doesn't mean that the end result is actually as fulfilling as the individual saw from the distance.

>Can you explain why human action resulted in the large support for the reds in Russia during the civil war?

I'm not really too sure about whether that's even true or not, but supposing it is, those people had self-interest in seeing the reds rule Russia. Doesn't mean that their self-interest was really fulfilled but so be it.

> Can you explain that human action resulted in forms of mutual aid?

What's there to explain? What do you find confusing about this one?

> Why do people act against the "Crony" Capitalist system via volentary association in the form of Unions?

Again, what are you confused about?

>Why do people act in ways you don't expect?

Well now I'm confused, what do you mean by this now?

>>74812

I explained it to you. If that wasn't to your liking, find a different source. You shouldn't be getting highly technical information from an imageboard in the first place. There's enough good books on this topic that can be downloaded completely legally, some of which I have already linked to in other threads.

>>74852

downloading is a form of coercion

nothing is free. if you arent paying someone for those books, you're a thief

>>74853

>downloading is a form of coercion

Is it though? IP is scarcity-free property, more than a few thinkers take that to mean it isn't private property at all. Trademarks I could see happening in the free market, because using another's trademark is a form of impersonation/fraud, but I don't see how most copyright legislation would survive.

>>74853

>downloading is a form of coercion

is it moral wrong to coerce my hardware to download someting?

>>74876

>>74853

You're not a socialist for pirating shit. You're a socialist for NOT pirating shit. If you actually need laws to force people to buy digital content when it is available for free then you are fucking with the free market and hurting the economy, that's all there is to it.

Essentially you're making the same shitty argument as "robots and automation are bad because some people will lose their jobs." or "3D printing is bad because now people can make their own shit for free instead of buying it from businesses."

New technologies like peer-to-peer downloading aren't a threat to capitalism at all, the market will evolve to new ways to fund those books without resorting to publishers and middle-men, crowdfunding is a good example.

>>74878

>socialism is wanting free shit

>expect when I also want it, then the opposite is socialism

lmao you can't make this up

>>74891

Tell me, what property rights are infringed when you take a piece of media that you own, copying it to create a different piece of property that you own, then voluntarily distributing it?

>>74876

> ideas are things you can own

Get fucked.

true liberty does not mean license to steal, defraud, or expropriate

>>74906

>but you don't own the media. that belongs to someone else who is allowing you to enjoy it. at most, you own a disc or item that allows you to access the media.

You're talking about a software license. If I signed a contract saying I agree not to make copies, then yes, that's enforceable. If no such license exists then the original creator has no right to bitch about copies being made.

>>74906

>building a bridge is not the same as stealing from A to give to B

There's no theft though, because A does not lose anything owned by A. You can't even call intellectual property "property," because it's not bound by scarcity.

>Why would anyone invent or create anything if their intellectual fruits are now "public property?"

The way to combat "public goods" is to create private goods that are more desirable. A good example of this on the vidya side is Steam. Millions of consumers use Steam, not because they've all taken a moral stand against piracy, but because it's so easy to use and has so many features that it's considered worth the price.

>if i don't have rights over my ideas what gives me the right to my physical body?

Your body is a real, and more importantly scarce, resource. "Ideas" are wholly unbound by scarcity. If it rustles your jimmies that much then put a trademark on your designs so you can sue anyone who tries to copy them for fraud (impersonating your firm, in effect), or make everyone who buys your OCDONUTSTEEL music sign a software license legally compelling them not to make copies.

no intellectual property = no privacy or private information

the socialists on /liberty/ would make good defenders for datamining

>>74915

>no intellectual property = no privacy or private information

You've got a right to encrypt and defend that information the best you can. "Hacking" into a private storage center is equivalent to breaking and entering, and thus trespassing, a clear violation of property rights.

>the socialists on /liberty/ would make good defenders for datamining

M8, if you could provide an argument besides saying IP is "valuable" I'd be happy to hear it. By the classical definition of property, which was touched on earlier in the thread, IP isn't property at all without extensive legislative fiat protecting it. If you've got a working theory for how IP laws could survive in a free market, or explain how IP is demonstrably private property, please share it with us instead of calling everyone a socialist.

>>74915

>no intellectual property = no privacy or private information

just keep your information secret but if you made it public dont butthurt for people copying it and using it

>>74957

The one that gets me is when you bring up private copyright groups forming the same way stuff like IPC or the Non-GMO project forms, and libertarians freak the fuck out.

>>74957

>his work should be public property, and they shouldn't be paid anything.

>strawmanning this hard

Not him, but the least you could do is address the arguments put forward.

>>74958

I'm actually curious about this. I can see how trademarks would work in the free market, as well as individual software licenses/contracts, but I'm not sure how a privatized attempt at copyright would succeed in the market. Care to share?

>>74909

>The way to combat "public goods" is to create private goods that are more desirable.

This. This is why musicians perform at concerts, and why authors make book signings. Despite music and books can be accessed for free, the content creators still profit.

>>74906

>good ideas are a very valuable commodity.

But they're not a scarce resource and that's the problem with intellectual property.

> if you can't own the fruits of your creative work then we may as well deny property rights altogether

That's quite a leap. One pertains to scarce resources in this world the other pertains to a mental resource which much like wants are virtually unlimited and almost impossible to accurately quantify.

>>74979

Publishers are like pimps. You're taking a lesser pay in exchange for safety/legitimacy/name. There's nothing wrong with having multiple models in a capitalist economy.

>>75003

Two people are not going to write "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" independent of each other in the same timeline without having read the other's work.

>>75008

Yes, I never said there is anything wrong with having different business models in a capitalist economy, but it is very wrong when publishers pressure governments into protecting their one. Government intervention is a sin and I can't believe there are even ancaps (of all people) who think it's a good thing.

>>75011

>but it is very wrong when publishers pressure governments into protecting their one.

Who said that was okay?

>Government intervention is a sin and I can't believe there are even ancaps (of all people) who think it's a good thing.

Which ancap thought it's a good thing?

>>75011

> Government intervention is a sin

For who? And who is going to punish it?

>>74979

how does the option to pay a writer or artist directly eliminate the threat of piracy? do you not understand how economic incentives work?

>>75003

>But they're not a scarce resource

have you ever had a job? ever witnessed someone try to steal another person's idea? it happens ALL the time. why? because good ideas are not only valuable they are also SCARCE.

>mental resources much like wants are virtually unlimited

again, have you ever worked a day in your life? have you ever experienced what it's like to be around the average person who can't even solve simple problems without being spoonfed the answer?

a lot of digital content now, upon use, requires the user to acknowledge that by using the content they agree not to redistribute or modify the content.

this is a simple contract between producer and consumer, and the reasons for having such contracts are obvious.

>>75049

No one is making you buy games from Steam or EA.

>>75056

Piracy is against the NAP

true Socialism will only exist if everything including the sexual marketplace is heavily regulated. no I'm not being ironic. irony and sarcasm are low-tier humanoid bullshit. American exceptionalism? let's talk about Earth exceptionalism. third planet from the sun doesn't mean you're the center of the universe.

>>75059

don't tell me what do earthling