/lit/ - Literature

>>20099379
there are none. what you read is pretty much considered the killing blow argument against socialism and yeah like you said it sucks

How about you get no answers?

>>20099379
No need for sophiscated arguments, just look at every socialist countries that ever existed.

you arent just going to wave a magic wand and have the trillions of variables just fall into place indefinitely that are required for the utopian socialist approach of anarchism and its derivatives, and i think it goes without saying that communism is another hilarious meme, with marxisms "dictatorship of the proletariat" where you are expected to employ the most totalitarian system ever conceived by man and expect it to end in a classless, stateless society free of private property

both approaches to socialism are so completely disconnected from reality and self defeating, it would be easily the single most fascinating exploration of human psychology ever if it wasn't so terrifying that these people lash out destroy the lives of everyone around them over and over and over again trying in vain to jam a square peg into a round hole and implement the "perfect system" fit for perfect people who dont actually exist in real life

>>20099379
Depends on what you mean by “socialism”
If it’s liberal reformist soc-dem, Marxist-Leninist, what?
There’s no defending capitalism at any of its stages

>>20099479

But I don't think society should be overhauled overnight and forcibly reinvented according to some prescribed doctrine, I think perhaps society should be gradually and carefully be restructured so as to align with more equitable, socialist principals

>>20099492
and what exactly is your totally viable plan with real world application for that? "just two more election cycles bro" ?

>>20099483

I guess I lean towards social democracy. I'm just interested to see if there's any well reasoned arguments against socialism/explicitly in favour of capitalism that aren't written by insane people/morons/right wing think tanks

>>20099507

As I said, I think its a gradual, measured process which takes place over time. Reduced working hours relative to one hundred years ago is an example of what I'm talking about - its a socialist principle (worker freedom) which has been slowly introduced over time. I don't think working hours is by any means perfect at the moment, but it's a relative improvement.

I don't have much faith in charismatic American politicians changing anything, which is what I presume the election cycles bro comment refers to. But I guess these changes will occur over time as all political changes do - of which there have been many relative to even fifty years ago. Direct action, political pressure, etc. There isn't any one way change happens, but it can indeed happen

“Everything is Marxism or heckin Ancapistan, there is no in between”
-You fucking idiots

>>20099545
Explain the in between

>>20099529
wow how wonderfully vague. honestly it sounds like you should be looking more into liberalism or fascism than socialism.

Ernst Junger The Worker

>>20099545
Some people hold extremist views on capitalism/not-capitalism.
And ancapistan is capitalist and Marxism is on capitalism

>>20099379
Rothbard's Man Economy and State presents an utilitarian critique, his Ethics of Liberty a moral one, but imo it all just comes down to the choice between equality of outcomes (socialist perspective) versus equality before the law - a conservative or capitalist approach. I doubt than any arguments can change one's instinctive preference in this matter.

>>20099379
pic related

>>20099508
>I guess I lean towards social democracy
In that case, then read pic related and then this
http://tomwoods.com/d/bernie.pdf

preview: Sweden had complete free-market capitalism, even more laissez faire than the US, up until 1975 when they had a total "democratic socialist" overhaul, electing socialist politicians, and passing reforms. They were 4th in terms of per capita GDP. and have subsequently dropped to like 14th. After 1975 Sweden only had some 60 percent of the accumulated growth that the United States had and only some two-thirds of the rest of Europe. moral of the story: the more socialist you are, the more broke you are.

>>20100320
Per capita GDP doesn't indicate what portion of that the common man possesses. This argument would be more convincing if you could similarly show data concerning living standards and HDI across the same interval.

>>20100370

>>20100429
not an argument

>>20100320
>Sweden had complete free-market capitalism, even more laissez faire than the US, up until 1975 when they had a total "democratic socialist" overhaul
What
Sweden was governed by socialists from 1936 until 1976 when they lost two elections to centrists and liberals. In 1975 the prime minister was the same man who was prime minister in 1969. It does not take detailed examination of the conditions in Sweden to be skeptical that they implemented democratic socialism in a single year, even before we introduce examples of such "complete free-market capitalism" as the state building a million homes in a nation of 8 million people between the years of 1965 and 1974. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Programme )

Sweden dropped in terms of per-capita GDP because other countries rose up, not because Swedes got poorer, nor even necessarily because Sweden failed to achieve potential growth. Other countries often hit windfalls - one can hardly blame Olof Palme that Norway struck oil.

(One might also note that Kjell-Olof Feldt, the finance minister from 1982 onwards, tried and succeeded in pulling things in a more market-oriented direction and was dismayed at how progressive Sweden's tax system was thanks to the efforts of his predecessor, who had been finance minister from 1955 until 1976. Once you account for the 1973 and 1979 oil shocks, it's not too difficult to see the outline of a counterargument that what hit Swedes was not democratic socialist economic policy, but its abandonment. But I'm not here to make that case. I just think Sweden's fun.)

>>20100320
>NOOOOOOO THE GDP NOOOOO
kys

>>20100542
>What
ok I misspoke, I was trying to remember it from memory. the actual quote from the book is that they doubled their government spending from 30% to 60% from the 70s to the 80s. pic related

>Other countries often hit windfalls
yes, sweden didn't get poorer. but it lagged behind the US and Europe's economic growth being only 60%. pic related

>>20099483
One thing capitalism allows you to do is discriminate, under socialism, there is one roofing company, one lawn care company, and you have to take what's offered on hand rather than a discernible consumer, decide what is best for you based on your income. Without the ability to discriminate, you're left taking up the status quo opinion and say this as a third positionist

>>20099379
The book you read is it. He even warns about how free market capitalism can become abused and be bad too.

I heard "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" is a more convincing one

>>20099379
>Hayek
>Neo-con shill.

Maybe try reading somebody who isn’t super biased. The best argument against ‘socialism’ at least in the materialistic, mass societal sense comes from your own studies of philosophy in my opinion, the way you should live as an individual, then how you should live within a family; then community etc, etc.

>>20099411
Big data is going to change all of that. On the other hand, you will relinquish your privacy to programs written by people who may or may not have your best interest in mind

ITT: People who think adding fractions is hard try to argue about the laws of economics.

Socialism doesn't work because it fucking can't. There's this little thing in the way called the second law of thermodynamics. Someone is ALWAYS going to get less out of the system than they put in, because that is how the laws of reality work. Socialism cannot succeed because it exists to provide an equity it cannot possibly provide.
The reason no one is this thread can provide you a book on why socialism is idiotic is because none of them have bothered to read a mathematics, physics, or engineering textbook more advanced than introductory college work, at best. And, the ones who have don't understand what they read, because this entire website has this superiority complex ad contrarian, faux spirituality induced by misinterpretations of dead philosophers that forces them to reject physicalism because the alternative would mean they aren't as special as they feel they are.

tl;dr - stop listening to these failed philosophy students try to tell you about the realities of the physical world they have never, ever bothered to study and learn some basic fucking math, it'll be obvious in short order why socialism cannot possibly work external to brief periods of surplus brought about necessarily and only by capitalism

You don’t know what socialism is. Why do you want to read a critique of ‘socialism’ as a whole? If you want to understand socialism you first have to understand enlightenment history, early industrialisation as a matter of fact and what ideologies are; then you need to read Hegel. I presuppose you’ve read everything you need to grasp a basic understanding of Hegel and philosophy before him as a whole. And then you read Marx on Feuerbach from which point you’ve only really learned about Marxism and maybe Socialism as a political ideology it was practised in during the 19th century. With that in mind and a basic understanding of world history from that point you can look at either post war political science and national policies (both do not even remotely have anything to do with each other) or modern politics textbooks, political science textbooks and history, &c.
Having read all that will if anything actually convinced you that you do not know what Socialism is, and that actually barely anyone does; the same goes for any other ideology, but Fascism, Socialism and Capitalism are or were most talked about.
At some point during your reading, probably closer to the end point, you’ll come across actual politics and see that you cannot actually practise something like Socialism itself. You have policies and it’s really all about the economy and money, and who gets what amount of funding for whatever reason, who doesn’t, with what frequency and how that compares to other nations, and so on. All of this is insomuch related to the people and their issues and social things and culture we’re exposed to in that causes for issues there are more underlying and those issues at the heart of life and nature, state and people could influence the economy, people’s jobs, everyone’s well being. Culture and things people in university talk about, and the things you see on YouTube, almost never influence governments and remain to themselves in a sphere that likes to play politics as an ideological game in culture, more so than committing to actual work which is more so compromise and organisations with little differences between nowadays even the means and ultimately always the ends; failure also remains universal to all. The point of Socialism as a political ideology to underlie state and government is simply not possible (anymore) with how a state functions, and the argument could be made that it never did much of a difference to the ends but for distribution and organisation which it thinks under any (national; so and so inherently distributive model) state could make a measurable difference, make a different thing altogether that would somehow work with the same technical landscape and in the same nature and situation of thought to be better. But don’t celebrate so quickly. Such is the fate of any revolutionary movement that is ideological throughout and not technical or whatever.

>>20099556
economic no no for most people as corporatism is the building blocks of fascism

>>20101730
> Big data is going to change all that
paradigm shift

>>20100542
GDP is kind of shit unless you're talking about one particular country within a time period where not much is being done to change its econ. structure, because of how it's calculated.

If a fully private ancapistan has GDP of X, and one day you turn it into non-ancapistan where you introduce 50% flat income tax that you then redistribute as UBI then with modern calculations you've just caused a GDP growth of 0.5X, even though obviously you didn't. If you abolish it next day you've now caused an economic disaster, one third of previous day's GDP was disintegrated.
Now that would be blatant bs that you can tell easily, but in real life situations it's much more subtle so you can never conclusively tell when the stats bs you and when they don't, which is why usefulness of the metric is sort of questionable.

>>20099379

>>20101787
>Someone is ALWAYS going to get less out of the system than they put in, because that is how the laws of reality work
Something, not someone. A nice attempt though.

>>20102166
>thermodynamics doesnt apply to human labor in an economy
Someone, as in a person working in an economy, which is the system I was obviously referring to. I know what I said, and every word of it was accurate and correct.
Read twice before you think you've found yourself a convenient gotcha. Put some effort into deprogramming yourself from this asinine clap-back mentality you've let yourself get trained into by social media (including 4chan).

>>20102305
The economy is not the only system in the world, nor is human labour the only input and wealth the only output, so the point stands.

This is one of those rare occasions where the Robinson Crusoe economy will illustrate more than it confuses: imagine that Crusoe and Man Friday are sitting on their island. There's a coconut tree, from which coconuts occasionally fall. If they simply sit in the sun doing nothing, talking to one another, coconuts will fall by their side. Perhaps they've got to smash open the coconuts before they can consume them, but even so they are "getting more out than they put in" - they've done nothing to cultivate the tree, the tree "cultivated" itself. Should they make nets and fish, they'll receive far more value in fish than they exerted in effort to make the nets (if this wasn't true then it would be economically irrational for them to bother!) because the fish themselves add value through their own life-cycle and handle their own reproduction. We might take this to the point of absurdity by recognising that they exert no effort to warm themselves (the sun handles that) or to cool themselves (the sea breeze handles that). At no point is any inequality between Mr. Crusoe and Mr. Friday necessitated by the laws of the system (it's possible, you may even argue desirable - perhaps with a division of labour - but it is by no means required) - their economy is open to the planet itself, and the planet itself is open to the universe. The universe, of course, is subject to the laws of thermodynamics, but it's also liable to turn everything into Iron-56 long after Crusoe and Friday are dead. But for the duration of their lives, the laws of thermodynamics are perfectly satisfied with earth receiving more from the sun than it gives back, and transferring that bounty to Crusoe and Friday through countless biological processes. (Or directly, in the case of the sunshine.)

>>20100790
>under socialism... there is one company...
are you retarded?

>>20101787
>someone is always going to get less out than they put in.
you know like the motto for socialism is from each according to ability to each according to need. thats not the fucking deathblow to socialism u think it is

>>20099479
not him but libraries and the fire department work pretty well

>>20100320
hmmm it's almost like something worldwide happened in 1975

lol yeah americans literally don't have savings accounts anymore

I've heard from a very well-read Marxist that he thinks Schumpeter is one of very few liberal economists who understood Marx. I can't tell you if it's true since I have not read his work, but it might be worth checking out for you.

>>20101730
Sure bro, I'll just let the state handle everything instead, I'm sure this can't go wrong.

the #1 argument against socialism is that you're probably american and thus a socialist system would be operated by the satanic pedophiles who run the US government, which is cringe

>>20099379
Reading anti-socialist books made me a socialist because I realized none of them could come up with any compelling arguments prominent socialist writers hadn't already satisfactorily addressed.

>If we attach more significance to feeling than to thinking, we shall soon, by a simple extension, attach more to wanting than to deserving. Even institutions of learning have yielded to the utilitarian standard, and former President James B. Conant of Harvard University declared in an address that the chief contribution of American universities had been the ideal of equality of all useful labor.

>This is the grand solution of socialism, which is itself the materialistic offspring of bourgeois capitalism.

>It clarifies much to see that socialism is in origin a middle-class and not a proletarian concept. The middle class owes to its social location an especial fondness for security and complacency. Protected on either side by classes which must absorb shocks, it would forget the hazards of existence. The lower class, close to the reality of need, develops a manly fortitude and is sometimes touched with nobility in the face of its precariousness. The upper class bears responsibility and cannot avoid leading a life of drama because much is put into its hand. Lightnings of favor or of discontent flash in its direction, and he at the top of the hierarchy, whether it rests on true values or not, knows that he is playing for his head. In between lies the besotted middle class, grown enormous under the new orientation of Western man. Loving comfort, risking little, terrified by the thought of change, its aim is to establish a materialistic civilization which will banish threats to its complacency. It has conventions, not ideals; it is washed rather than clean. The plight of Europe today is the direct result of the bourgeois ascendancy and its corrupted world view.

>Thus the final degradation of the Baconian philosophy is that knowledge becomes power in the service of appetite. The state, ceasing to express man's inner qualifications, turns into a vast bureaucracy designed to promote economic activity. It is little wonder that traditional values, however much they may be eulogized on commemorative occasions, today must dodge about and find themselves nooks and crannies if they are to survive at all. Burke's remark that the state is not a "partnership in things subservient only to gross animal existence" now seems as antiquated as his tribute to chivalry.

>>20099379
Marx.

>>20099379
Maybe Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics? That's the one I remember being most convincing. But a lot of the people who usually set out to argue "against socialism" are cringe classical liberals like Hayek, Friedman, etc. who are mostly concerned about the centralization of economic power implied by socialism.

Do you want to read a book-length argument for why alchemy is wrong? No one with the requisite knowledge and skill would bother wasting the time to write such a thing. Wouldn't help much if everyone working in the publishing industry was sympathetic to alchemy.

>>20104764
Public libraries are daytime homeless shelters, and fire departments regularly beef over jurisdiction while houses burn down.

>>20105776
Thanks for posting this anon. I searched up the quote and found Ideas Have Consequences. I’m just 5 pages in and his stuff about William of Occam is great and has me hooked.

>>20099379
under capitalism we're doing so well that people think having to pay a extra 10 bucks at the pump is a worldwide economic crisis.

society goes through the same collapse cycle in every single empire that's existed regardless of the political system, read fate of empires

>>20099379
what does socialism need to solve exactly?

>>20102116
based choice

A lot of these choices suck. You won't get anything insightful from hacks like Sowell or Hazlitt.

Hayek is genuinely great but The Road to Serfdom is far from his best work or even that relevant to his primary arguments against socialism. "Individualism and Economic Order" is a much better choice.

Kornai's "The Socialist System" is wonderful. It's a bit dry and more of a textbook but Michael Ellman's "Socialist Planning" gives a detailed account on the actual operations and failings of socialist economies. For a more philosophical approach, I'd recommend Jason Brennan's "Why Not Capitalism?". N. Scott Arnold's "The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism: A Critical Study" is also good if you want a critique of market socialism.

>>20106474
I’m glad, anon. He’s kind of fried but has some interesting things to say and I’ve always thought he was underrated. Another one of his thoughts on socialism from his essay Up From Liberalism below, which is one of my favorite essays of all time and definitely worth reading.

(1/2)

>That persuasion was not weakened, I must add, by the fact that my class graduated in May, 1932, at almost precisely the time that the Great Depression reached its lowest point on the economic charts. College graduates were taking any sort of job they could get, however menial or unrelated to their preparation, and many, of course, were not getting jobs at all. It seemed then that some sort of political reconstruction was inevitable, and in that year I joined the American Socialist Party. My disillusionment with the Left began with this first practical step.

>The composition of our small unit of the Socialist Party was fairly typical, I have since learned, of socialist organizations throughout the world. There was on the one side a group of academic people—teachers and students—who were intellectually trained and fairly clear in their objectives, but politically inexperienced and temperamentally not adapted to politics. On the other side was about an equal number of town people who cannot be described for the good reason that they were nondescripts. They were eccentrics, novelty seekers, victims of restlessness; and most of them were hopelessly confused about the nature and purpose of socialism. I remember how shocked I was when a member of this group suggested that we provide at our public rallies one of the “hillbilly bands” which are often used to draw crowds and provide entertainment in Southern political campaigns. This seemed to me entirely out of tone with what we were trying to do. I have since had to realize that the member was far more astute practically than I; the hillbilly music would undoubtedly have fetched more auditors and made more votes than the austere exposition of the country’s ills which I thought it the duty of a socialist to make. But I am sure that the net result would not have been socialism. The two groups did not understand one another, and it is a wonder to me that they worked together as long as they did.

>In the course of a membership of about two years, during which I served as secretary of the “local,” as it was called, I discovered that although the socialist program had a certain intellectual appeal for me, I could not like the members of the movement as persons. They seemed dry, insistent people, of shallow objectives; seeing them often and sharing a common endeavor, moreover, did nothing to remove the disliking. I am afraid that I performed my duties with decreasing enthusiasm, and at the end of the period I had intimations, which I did not then face, that this was not the kind of thing in which I could find permanent satisfaction.

>>20106830
(2/2)
>Meanwhile, another experience had occurred which was to turn my thoughts in the same direction. I had gone as a graduate student to Vanderbilt University to pursue an advanced degree in literature. Vanderbilt was another provincial university, but it had developed in the hands of men intelligent enough to see the possibilities that exist in a reflective provincialism. It was at that time the chief seat of the Southern Agrarian school of philosophy and criticism. This was one of the most brilliant groups in the United States, but its members held a position antithetical in almost every point to socialism and other purely economic remedies. By some their program was regarded as mere antiquarianism; by others, it was attacked as fascist, since it rejected science and rationalism as the supreme sanctions, accepted large parts of the regional tradition, and even found some justification for social classes. But here, to my great surprise and growing confusion, I found that although I disagreed with these men on matters of social and political doctrine, I liked them all as persons. They seemed to me more humane, more generous, and considerably less dogmatic than those with whom I had been associated under the opposing banner. It began to dawn upon me uneasily that perhaps the right way to judge a movement was by the persons who made it up rather than by its rationalistic perfection and by the promises it held out. Perhaps, after all, the proof of social schemes was meant to be a posteriori rather than a priori. It would be a poor trade to give up a non-rational world in which you liked everybody for a rational one in which you liked nobody.

>>20106674
>hacks like Sowell

What is with the hate for this man? Is it just because normies and NPCs read his books? Is it because of his views on race? Most of his economics books are well-researched and convincingly argued iirc and I don’t understand why lolberts are now disowning one of their most convincing apologists.

>>20099379
Doesn't directly talk about socalism but The Logic of Political Survival by Alastair Smith, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, and James D. Morrow scuttles the possibility of 'final stage socialism' that you see in theoretical texts by arguing any large scale political ideal or movement gets subsumed by the imperative of political actors to pursue their survival first and foremost. Lots of pol-sci math in it, read The Dictator's Handbook for the normie version written by two of the authors - title sounds like middlebrow cringe but the book is actually pretty interesting

>>20106830
>>20106834

good shit, i used to be a university socialist and it's gratifying to see a near-universal experience people tend to have with left wing/socialist organisations. weird, neurotic, unfeeling people

I've always been a little amused that the country which seems to have most closely followed the path from socialist planning to autocracy in the way described by 'The Road to Serfdom' was Chile, where the Junta came to power not by promising to perfect the plan but to purge it.

>>20107150
You have your terms confused. We are not worried about a ruler which cannot be replaced, but about one which steals your food, sends you to the labor camp, choses a spouse for you and make work "illegal" under his arbitrary conditions.

>Just trust us bro, it will work this time!
>t. every socialist
Every socialist experiment has failed so why would anyone still be a socialist in the modern day?

>>20099479
I mean, that's literally no different from any ideology. Capitalism has killed way more people for the same logic. I would at least say most actual attempts have generally gone better.

>>20107413
>Failed
By what definition? The states collapsed? By that argument all ideologies are going to fail eventually. The GDP was lesser than the USA? That was true before and after communism and it's probably not going to change until the USA self destructs.

I'm not saying you can't define socialism as having failed, I would certainly argue the communist state project of the USSR, and to a lesser extent China, have failed. But that would require me to define the conditions for failure first.

>>20099379
>What book is a good argument against socialism?
I would say there aren't any economic books that actually make a good case against socialism simply because the actual horrors of capitalism are evident every day. But I would argue the history of the USSR makes a pretty convincing case for why a state based communist project failed. With similar history books about revolutions in West Europe showing why a world revolution was always a pipe dream.

>>20099379
Nietzsche thoroughly demolished leftism for centuries to come. It’s a deranged cult of inferiority that will never ever succeed in the long term without sacrificing their individualist slave morality in favor of national unity

>>20107608
>national unity
That's only really relevant in a state based project. Which, granted, is the norm. But for what it's worth I do think figures like Stalin, Mao, Fidel Castro, for all of their flaws, are pretty close to borderline ubermensch figures.

>>20099529
Reduced working hours was a capitalist invention. People would spend more money that way.

>>20107665
It wasn't. It was mostly caused by pressure from socialist parties and genuine fear of a revolution.

>>20099483
Imagine believing in the stages of history

>>20100790
Okay, now that one company discrimnates against you. Or does something you don't like and don't want to support. What do you do? What are the alternatives. Why can't someone else make a business out of the needs of those dissatisfied with the "right" one? What's to prevent totalitarianism? Socialism was invented by rich kids who were either stupid or wanted to fuck over others to get richer or started stupid, got wise, then fucked over people to get richer. These ideologies take away the ability of free action. To make your own business. It has never worked and will never work. I can't believe all adults don't laugh at this. I thought thus was something only still in teenagers heads.

>>20107680
Absurd, no revolution in history was driven by "working class" desires. Self-proclaimed "defenders of the working class" is another thing, but they were financed and organized by higher echelons of socialist crooks - which didn't give a fuck about workers' needs anyway.

>>20104764
>literally the socialism is when government does thing meme

>>20104874
Well-read or widely-read?

>>20107699
Are you retarded, the whole fucking point of Marx' (and all socialists') sperging was that PRIVATE enterprise is le bad. If gaberment does it it's fine.

>>20105737
Or you're not American and are from a country where socialism was "attempted unsuccessfully" or you look at the pedophile socialists and don't like them as people or characters let alone idealogues and leaders.

>>20099379

Economics for Business, 2019, John Sloman.

>>20106855
It's more NPCs and counter-NPCs going "Black science man! Racist? Based?" That detracts people thinking it's another Jordan Peterson thing where it's really only helpful to plebs and beginners. I quite like his economics better than his more race focused works but he does a good job with both in relation to eachother.

>>20107713
Theres a difference between having a public fire station and having the state control everything. In the same way that theres a difference between privately owning a bakery and having everything being privatized.

>>20107596
Conditions: No mass genocide of it's own population.

>>20107680
It was caused by big corporations looking at the economy and noticing people didn't have time to spend the money they earnt. The blood wasn't pumping around that well. Fucking Ford pioneered the 5 day work week because he didn't see all his workers driving his cars. There was no socialist pressure. These were still already rich people or idiots in pubs.

>>20107827
Sure, the more important the industry is the more it should stay in private hands. "Public" food supply means mass starvation, "public" energy supply only means extraorbitant energy costs and shortages - and public education makes a good source of anecdotes about retarded teachers.

>>20107886
And to add those retarded teachers spouting similar ideas about public institutions

>>20107709
Well-read, though he also enjoys a bit of local internet fame over here for his political and economic analysis' and film critiques.

>>20107596
Every single socialist state has devolved into poverty and tyranny. The USSR collapsed within two lifetimes.

>>20107699
a group of individuals pooling cost to provide an unprofitable service isn't socialism?

>>20106855
>shill shills for reaganomics
>reaganomics is a disaster
>but the shill is still credible
durrrr

>>20099379
Djilas' The New Class is the book you're looking for.

>>20107867
bismark explicitly instituted the german welfare state to replace the self-organized socialist institutions that german workers were developing on their own

>>20099388
Why are socialists always this stupid

>>20100320
this book is a joke. how much of a free market kool aid drinker do you have to be to recommend this holy fuck. yes i have read it

>>20107693
Uh I'm poor and live in America. I'm also a white guy. And I'm pushing 40

>>20108883
Also we can look at this from another angle: gay cake makers forced to make Nazi birthday cake

>>20099379
absolutely btfos every single socialist argument.

https://mises.pl/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/socialism.pdf

>>20101787
>There's this little thing in the way called the second law of thermodynamics.
Fuck I hate how arrogant everyone on this board sounds

>socialism doesn't work
>sharing doesn't work
Of course it does.

>>20104874
Schumpeter is one of the best

>>20109214
>violently enforced sharing doesn't work
ftfy

>>20106855

He's a political pundit, not a serious economist. There are *actual* economists with similar views in regards to economic liberalism and race like Glenn Loury and Roland G. Frye, both of whom have produced actual research unlike Sowell outside of his one or two papers published in the 70's.

Beyond that, he just regurgitates the most basic of conservative arguments and pretends like the field of economics has this libertarian consensus which just isn't true, and does a disservice to those views by not seriously engaging with the counter-arguments. He's only convincing to those who already agree with him.

>>20109214
>date 26 year old thot
>still lives like this

>>20109214
Socialism works but only in homogenous populations
High levels of immigration should now be considered a necessary feature of capitalism

>>20109420
What a meme. Where does this dumb idea come from that racial or ethnic homogeneity somehow magically solves all conflicts in politics and practical economic issues? If only my ethnicity was the same as the other guy, the incentive and planning issues within socialism would simply disappear or something.

>>20109577
Name one successful socialist country that didn’t utilize nationalism in some way

>>20099379
There is none. Socialism is the best system for the most amount of people. It is not in the interest of those who monopolize the wealth and power in society so that's why it is demonized though.

>>20101787
reddit way of addressing this point but essentially right. Socialists also tend to subscribe to cornucopianism.

>>20100320
>I want to ignore every single metric related to the actual condition of human beings and focus solely on GDP
Thank you for demonstrating the only argument against socialism is from psychopaths

>>20100595
>"Oh, won't someone think of the GDP!"

>>20100790
Uh oh, a retarded Amerimut doesn't know the difference between communism and socialism. Someone doesn't understand you can have elements of a free market within an overall framework of socialism.

>>20101684
For some reason there is a massive shilling campaign for the Austrian school of economics even though it is a fringe and thoroughly debased and disgraced viewpoint.

>>20101787
>>20109798
>NOOO The oil revenue will go to PRIVATE owners, not the public!
What matters are the means of production and access to natural resources. Nature itself "puts in" the main driver of economic growth, it's ownership who decide to hoard the profits and disenfranchise everyone else.

>>20109832
You must have a capitalist base to sustain a parasitic socialist superstructure. Granted that you can have a whip and concentration camps otherwise.
The society can endure a bit of theft, but not full retardation.

>>20108109
Is his stuff in english?

>>20109848
>disenfranchise everyone else
No they're not.
See anyone can arbitrarily choose what is just or not. Socialists know this, but are temporarily disempowered dictators so they don't have the means to impose their vision the way the current owners of capital do.

>>20109711
Name one successful socialist country
>Verification not required.

>>20109805
>Economist shit
Go back with your pseudoscience bs to /biz/ faggot.

>>20107717
>>20108949
No response on these. Must be good.

>>20110054
The People's Republic of China

>>20109805
lol that's not what i said, faggot

>>20108874
oh yeah tough guy? what's the one lesson then? in your own words

>>20110119
>You serious?

>>20110029
Unfortunately no, only German. He has however published a relatively successful book on the ideology of influencers recently which has been translated to Korean and Spanish, so I guess an English one will follow at some point. His name is "Wolfgang M. Schmitt".

>>20099379
I’m far more interested in the self-destruction of liberalism than the idea that socialism is a better alternative to it considering how many foundations of liberal ideology that it requires to even be sustained. Where would China be for example without neoliberals outsourcing all their production there?

>>20099379
Antifragile, unironically. Once you read it, you won't be wholly in favor of socialism, capitalism, or any ism. You'll start to think something like this:
- Libertarian at the federal level
- Conservative at the state level
- Democrat at the local level
- Socialist with friends and family
- Marxist with your cat
Cohesive, independent, extended family units are the only place where socialism has a home. These units participate democratically at the municipal level to allocate surplus resources to local families who need it. The state is responsible for maintaining infrastructure that facilitates trade between these municipalities (and no more), and the federal level is responsible for identifying interstate & foreign, opportunities, threats, and organizing levies assembled by the states that are in turn drawn from the municipalities. Note that the only levels that are directly responsible for the welfare of others are family units and the immediate municipal collective that these families reside in. This solves a lot of lack of skin-in-the-game issues.

>>20107845
I appreciate it's likely to read as whataboutism, but I find it interesting that our standards for this differ by system. The Holodomor is treated as a genocide because the government didn't intervene when it could've, but the Irish famine isn't even though the same is true. Presumably because in Britain you can blame luck and market forces, while in the USSR it's all on the state - even though in both cases the state had the capacity to act and declined to do so anywhere near enough to put a stop to the problem.

Eventually I will think up a less politically contentious version of the same way of thinking, then that question can be discussed without bickering over how appropriate specific historical examples are.

>>20110299
He has a badass name. Not just the wolfgang part, it's enhanced.

>>20110629
I agree. When I look in history and fiction the only time I've seen socialism work is when I read the walking dead and they were all in small connected groups

>>20110890
I just think of these mass deaths as killings of the systems when they specifically do it themselves.

>>20099379
ITT a lot of people who didnt read pic related

There are some good arguments against socialism, but none of them come from the classical liberal types and the reason why is that they never argue by appealing to Actually Existing Liberal Capitalism™, they argue from a position of a liberal capitalism that only exists in their fantasies and theories. They say that the problem with socialism is that it can't calculate economically, as if this is what capitalist markets do? Elon Musk can literally shitpost on Twitter and the entire stockmarket crashes 5 points.

Another thing these people are never honest about is the reality that capital markets depend upon the threat of American imperial power to an extraordinary degree. The market is LITERALLY only as stable as the threat of an American bombing campaign is believed to be true.

>>20113022
>Actually Existing Liberal Capitalism™
You misspelled leftist Welfare State.

>>20113067
Cope more lolbert nigger.

>>20113075
Yeah, I get it, even the USSR was "capitalist" for you morons so obviously every system known to men that was ever implemented was capitalist (for you) kek.

>>20110538
>considering how many foundations of liberal ideology that it requires to even be sustained.
Which ones, for example?

>>20113108
Literally zero arguments, just pure autistic screeching.

>>20113127
You can't count to zero, no surprise that economic calculation is beyond your reach.

>>20099379
slaves are not capable of arguing against socialism

>>20109841
what's with all the inflation lately? were any economists NOT surprised by it?

>>20100790
>One thing capitalism allows you to do is discriminate, under socialism, there is one roofing company, one lawn care company
Anon why are you so retarded?

>>20113307
Here's the thing about being retarded, you know how the gay community goes around fucking little boys and somehow people tolerate that? Well you see the thing is, gay people are allowed to spread their poz around and no one bats an eye but extreme eugenic measures are placed around retards like they're social deviants but in reality they're the most innocuous demographic but no one ever tries applying the same logic to queers. Anyways, hail Lysenko and fuck Darwin

Also the same people who argue against libertarians like Walter Block tend to get up arms when someone yells nigger in their private property, like at least be consistent and not be a business owner if you're a commie. Private property stifles free speech and I'm amazed no one has made the connection except for people like Jim Profit

>>20113363
>>20113378
>you know how the gay community
What?
>but extreme eugenic measures are placed around retards
...what?

>Also the same people who argue against libertarians like Walter Block tend to get up arms when someone yells nigger in their private property, like at least be consistent and not be a business owner if you're a commie. Private property stifles free speech
......what?

Anon are you ok?

>>20113411
Read it again and follow more closely. You're not getting the point

The thing is no one ever tries noping gays out the gene pool because muh homophobia but some how its ok to sterilize "retards" even though hardly any of them engage in sexual intercourse. So what gives?

>>20113499
I get it. I mean, what the fuck does it even have with the subject, or my responces? Anon, does the issue of retard rights hit close to home?

>The thing is no one ever tries noping gays out the gene pool because muh homophobia
Anon, when a homosexual gay man engages in an anal intercourse with another gay faggot homo, this results in exactly 0% chance of pregnancy for both participating parties. Same with the lesbians, believe it or not. Homos either adopt (so no genetic heritage transmitted), or use a (heterosexual) semen donor/surrogate mother, which means only one of the couple propagates his degenerate genes - which would be no different from the reproducing part of the couple entering a heterosexual relationship.

Anon, I think you might be legit retarded, to the point where your own mental shortcomings might impact your capacity to distinguish context, or even properly comprehend the issues bothering you in any context at all. Consider professional help.

>>20113684
I was just a general observation. Gay people should be forbidden to adopt because of their history of rampant sexual abuse that occurs at the hands of gays (especially lesbians). Also no, I'm fine but thanks for offering

>>20099379
pic related

Socialism is only good if it’s for white people. Yugoslavia was glorious and NATO carpet bombed the shit out of them for that.

>>20113726
Dosto makes no argument against Socialism in Demons tho - only against nihilists (which formed the anti-Tsarist political circles that he was part of in his youth, and which he deconstructs in the book). The novels' criticism just wheezes past any ideology that postulates any sort of moral values or judgements, unlike junior Verkhovensky or Stavrogin, who have no point beyond the complete rejection of any morality and values.

>>20108595
>Why are socialists always this perceptive
FTFY

>>20105727
Yeah bro, letting unaccountable globalhomo corps who hate our ability to express ourselves is totally gonna be so much better

>>20101787
>Dooood, your political system couldn't possibly work because of thermodynamics!
>Hey, did you know we economists use, like, differential equations and stuff to model things? Woohee, that makes us so smart and advanced, it's not like you could possibly understand

There is seriously little point in discussing shit with you people.

the public/private distinction is a complete meme.
look at new zealand, where the state owns a bunch of companies (including air new zealand) but basically leaves them to run themselves.

>>20113882
idiot

>>20113897
t. anon with an understanding of different countries that barely extends as far as the next county

>>20099379
>good argument
I enjoy accruing wealth and I see no reason why I shouldn't

>>20101787
>Someone is ALWAYS going to get less out of the system than they put in, because that is how the laws of reality work.
When I fuck your wife I'll ask her to tell you that it was the second law of termodymanics that made her swallow my cum.

>The reason no one is this thread can provide you a book on why socialism is idiotic is because none of them have bothered to read a mathematics, physics, or engineering textbook
STEM academia is EXTREMELY left-wing.

>>20113882
>the public/private distinction is a complete meme
Correct.

>>20113913
>I enjoy accruing wealth and I see no reason why I shouldn't
Your employer/IRS/Wall Street bears.

>There is a class of revolutionists named Girondins, whose fate in history is remarkable enough! Men who rebel, and urge the Lower Classes to rebel, ought to have other than Formulas to go upon. Men who discern in the misery of the toiling complaining millions not misery, but only a raw-material which can be wrought upon, and traded in, for one's own poor hidebound theories and egoisms; to whom millions of living fellow-creatures, with beating hearts in their bosoms, beating, suffering, hoping, are 'masses,' mere 'explosive masses for blowing down Bastilles with, for voting at hustings for us: such men are of the questionable species! No man is justified in resisting by word or deed the Authority he lives under, for a light cause, be such Authority what it may. Obedience, little as many may consider that side of the matter, is the primary duty of man. No man but is bound indefeasibly, with all force of obligation, to obey. Parents, teachers, superiors, leaders, these all creatures recognise as deserving obedience. Recognised or not recognised, a man has his superiors, a regular hierarchy above him; extending up, degree above degree; to Heaven itself and God the Maker, who made His world not for anarchy but for rule and order! It is not a light matter when the just man can recognise in the powers set over him no longer anything that is divine; when resistance against such becomes a deeper law of order than obedience to them; when the just man sees himself in the tragical position of a stirrer up of strife! Rebel, without due and most due cause, is the ugliest of words; the first rebel was Satan.—
socialists BTFO

>>20114041
>the first rebel was Satan
And the second was Eve, and the third - Adam. And much later afterwards - Moses, Joshua, John and Jesus.

Condemn your God for daring to act against the works of man's injustice.

>>20114041
>No man is justified in resisting by word or deed the Authority he lives under, for a light cause, be such Authority what it may.
What if the authority is abusing their subjects? Or breaking the terms of the agreement? I say this as someone who is sentimental to this idea but cannot justify absolute obedience

>>20114041
wtf I love satan now

>>20105855
Not OP nor am I a socialist or anything but I was not very impressed at some of his counters either. I thought his whole overview of labor markets was kinda grasping at straws and he ignored some major aspects. It was a good book though.

>>20114808
“for a light cause” is key
Carlyle is not an absolutist. He supported Cromwell against Charles I, and recognized that an aristocracy that did not do its duties lost its right to rule.

>>20113012
>Mises
He deserves to be skipped, same with the rest of the Austrian School hacks

>>20113022
The real engine of our economic is natural resources like oil. These resources are ruthlessly pursued through military power. To borrow a phrase: "Economic power flows from the barrel of a gun."

Add in the fact that entities like JP Morgan can admit to manipulating the metal market for years and only pay the government a small percentage of their gains as a fee to continue using law enforcement power to protect their on-going racket, and it becomes clear our entire economy is a pure sham.

>>20114041
>>20115459
>"YOU MUST NOT REBEL"
>"Well, yeah, okay, you can rebel, but like, only if it's justified"
What an incoherent buffoon.

>>20099379
The biology, crime statistics, inceldom, atheism etc. Basically, the reality. I don't think you have to read any books when everything is in front of your eyes. What leftists in general fail to understand is that humans cannot live in harmony. We have a primal desire to be in a conflict.

>>20101886
IQ +1

>>20113022
>...but none of them come from the classical liberal types and the reason why is that they never argue by appealing to Actually Existing Liberal Capitalism™, they argue from a position of a liberal capitalism that only exists in their fantasies and theories.
That's literally socialists as well.

>>20113684
Gays do reproduce sexually. How do you think people become gay? These people are allowed to adopt and have surrogates or donate egg/sperm as well.

>>20115782
There are plenty of apologists for the USSR and even people like Stalin. They may not be particularly convincing most of the time, but they exist.
On the other hand, very few people would like to be stiffed with the task of openly defending the status quo.

>>20099379
The Servile State by Hilaire Belloc

>>20115861
I like the status quo because I can figure out what to do for myself and do it. I really do believe "Capitalism isn't the perfect system but it's the only one that works"

>>20115861
The status quo is the least bad global economic system we've historically ever had.

>>20113120
Main reason why socialism is such a joke in the West is because liberalism already enabled a lot of policies that satisfied people through social democracy. Aside from that, more ardent forms of socialism are still a continuation of the Enlightenment and carry the same presumptions of the state. For that reason it’s unlikely that socialism will ever be dominant in places where liberalism is already entrenched since they’re so intertwined in the political tradition. Countries where liberalism is foreign however like China have it much easier in terms of implementing socialist bureaucracies

>>20115959
I suspect you're taking the status quo too broadly. If you're big on capitalism, why don't we get the state out of all the areas where it's currently egregiously fucking things up? Why not privatize and bring the market in to work its magic more widely?
Well, maybe you like things balanced, or you want a welfare safety net - so why not make that safety net work better? Why not take out some of the kafkaesque nonsense. Why not give America a functioning healthcare system?
Or maybe you don't care about economics, maybe social issues are your thing - what of the declining influence of the family, or the social tensions of multiculturalism, the lingering influence of religion in prejudice against people's private lives, or the declining influence of religion as a source of moral teaching. Heck, maybe your problem is busybodies who think they can tell other people what to do either way rather than leaving well enough alone. At the moment the one thing most people would agree on is that we've got an unsatisfying mixture.

I'm not saying you can't support essentially the status quo with a few bells on, but almost everyone breaks sufficiently far from it as to constitute a different outlook, whether that's libertarian, liberal, social democratic, nationalist, globalist, or what have you.

>>20115971
"Least bad" isn't really a ringing endorsement - people like to have the best, not the least bad. Very few people would argue we should keep doing exactly what we're doing now. Again an example: Let's say things are the least bad they've ever been because of America and China opening up trade, leading to plunging poverty there - great, excellent - but then you've got to ask if we shouldn't be spreading free trade more widely, why not have free trade with Africa and get poverty down there too? Well, excellent, but now you've dug up a pretty big problem with the status quo: continuing poverty in Africa due to protectionism.

Not that the status quo has to be flawless, but there was a day when free trade was the defining issue for (then, economic) liberals. If defending capitalism from communism, would you not be tempted to go "And if we'd just be good liberals and allow free trade, then capitalism would fix Africa's poverty..." rather than going "Well, admittedly we've made a mess of Africa through irrational protectionism, but at least it's not as bad as communism!"?
(I'm aware Africa's actually getting better off. The examples are really more for illustration. A Soviet apologist will defend practically everything about the USSR, while an apologist for the status quo tends to primarily attack the alternatives.)

Read Human Action. Or just Google the ECP.
Also, let me introduce you to a man named Murray N. Rothbard

>>20099379
OP maybe this book will help you.
Mises were really going to the core of socialism on this one. He was really ahead of his time, much so considering the age that he wrote the book.

>>20110629
Will I become a scared covid bitch if I read Taleb? I can't stand his prose.

>>20108595
myopia.

The common downfall of most midwits unable to reorient.

>>20099655
it's a decent critique according to his ethics, but the problem is his ethics are completely retarded and incoherent.

>>20107886
which is why the USSR went to space first and kicked America's ass in literacy, math, and physics.

>>20116642
The Soviets first launched a big German rocket into the orbit and "Soviet science" is an oxymoron - they've contributed literally nothing. Also, only a few percent of their population were getting higher education - this has increased fivefold immediately after communism collapse.

>>20116630
>his ethics are completely retarded and incoherent
You must be the guy who just praised Soviet scientific achievements, your Ethics evidently didn't stand the test of time either.

>>20115971
>The status quo is the least bad global economic system we've historically ever had.
>we've
The level of burger pleb cope.

>>20099379
The thing that I don't understand is, why do the people who hate, elon for example, are almost always trannies or some sort of other types of freaks? Why do these socialists/communists/anarchists that hate billionaires for their wealth are almost always some sort of a degenerate freak?
https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1503287788652871680
https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1503276966874595330

>>20113286
Is this what your daddy marx says?

>>20107572
>Capitalism has killed way more people for the same logic
>b-but capitalism!!
The only reason why that might be the case is because there were much more capitalist countries than communist ones and capitalism existed longer.

>>20100370
True. The best examples for this would be Memezuela and Cuba.

>>20099411
I look at every modern nation and all I see is misery and failure, regardless of whatever your dumb-as-shit directionbrain political opinion is.

>>20100320
>le basic economics
>muh gdp
God this board is full of absolute troglodytes kek you people don't actually think critically or read at all

>>20104549
i don't feel like working today so will do my work for me instead

>>20115796
They reproduce by molestation. Case closed.

>>20113938
STEM fags should be genocided

Literally any history book about the 20th century.

>>20118519
Sorry that effectiveness is what humanity has chosen as their economic system and not morals about people being too successful for your liking.

>>20113938
>STEM academia is EXTREMELY left-wing.
sure it is

>>20119672
>effectiveness
kek

Henry George's Progress and Poverty gives a comprehensive alternative beyond socialism or capitalism. Marx pretended to read it but clearly didn't.

>>20099379

The best argument is that the proletariat has never been strong enough or motivated enough to seize wealth from the bourgeois in any advanced country. They allow themselves to be bought off with trinkets and welfarebux, and come to identify with their rulers, like house niggers. Therefore they deserve their slavery and exploitation.

>>20121274
I have it. Is it worth it?

>>20120634
From what I noticed he's right. Those people have nothing but contempt for average joes. Same with cryptotraders. Both should be put in camps.

>>20113882

It's a meme because the most powerful private sector actors are able to shape the market environment that they operate in by paying off politicians. The "free market" exists nowhere on earth.

>>20099379
>I decided a position is wrong but can't prove it, can you guys do my biased research for me

>>20099379
Socialism is inevitable, it's not a matter of argument for or against.

>>20121374
The beginning is a snore based primarily on the disorganized state of the economics profession at the time.

The anti-Malthusian part is where it's absolutely electric. From there until the "unbound savannah" part -- that's the main thing to read. Then skim forward to
"The Remedy"

>>20121379
shitlibs aren't leftists, but I'm not a real directionbrainer so I'm just being dragged into using these dumb empty signifiers

>>20121392
So why are you babbling all the time that it doesn't work if it isn't even here in the first place.
We don't have the free market (but gaberment enforced cartels and oligarchs in charge) precisely because of masses of idiots like you.

>>20099379
Politics is so boring. The only reason you like it so much is your massive insecurity and flaccid personal existence.

>>20109577
You've actually not said anything.

Other anon is completely right, and it's incredible how well right-wing think tanks convinced so many to think that immigration was a left-wing weakness. Importing thousands of units of cheap labor only benefits the capitalists, we as citizens directly oppose it because of the socialist within each of us that goes "more weight to bear".

Socialism can only work in homogeneous populations, it doesn't have to be racial or ethnic, but there needs to be a common agreement between all people and a common 'cause' or 'culture'. There can be no sharing and camaraderie against a disordered nation, people butt heads and protest that spongers from X group are leeching off the labor of Y group. Such in-fighting can be heavily encouraged by propagandist parties (products of right-wing think tanks and as Hitler points out, Jews [fuck you just because it's antisemitic doesn't make it wrong]). There is no homogeneity in modern America, for example, but it's not because there are blacks, whites, asians, and mexicans. All 4 can get along, but only if they all have the same culture. Advertising, and the advent of the internet, has proved extremely successful at separating us into smaller and smaller niches. This is entirely to the benefit of capitalism, and the detriment of socialism.

>>20102166
Underrated

>>20101787
Cunt, I have a degree in mathematics, I've studied multidimensional calculus, analysis, abstract algebra, abstract linear algebra, topology, functional analysis, lie groups/algebras, chaos theory, etc... When I finished my studies, I moved to literature and humanities as a hobby, but I can guarantee there is more mathematical ability in my little finger than in your entire being. The mathematics required in understanding "the economy", from either a capitalist or socialist perspective, can be done by toddlers. Anyone who can string two sentences into a coherent argument is capable of understanding, at a glance, how the economy works, but few have the willpower to think it through critically, from very start to very end.

The study of economy is better looked at as a study of human history. Your second law of thermodynamics talks about entropy. It says things become more 'chaotic'. This is not the same as saying "value is lost along the way", since the order we lose in performing labor is an atomic order that will fuck off into space anyway. The sun shining heat on the Earth causes entropy to increase, but biomes have existed for millions of years before capitalism just fine. Since you like your science references, there's this little thing called symbiotic relationships.

Your capitalism is built on the premise that all transactions have to be IMMEDIATELY PAID, or otherwise paid back slowly with much interest. It is a doctrine of NOW, of QUICKLY. Socialism works when you remove this unsavory rush of everyday life. I give my neighbour a pig for a banquet. A few years later, his daughter is looking mighty beautiful, hey neighbour, remember that pig? Yeah, well... *yoink* your daughter's mine now hehe. But your tiny little head likes capitalism because then remembering things over long times is no longer necessary. All capitalists I know are like this, they have no capacity for memory, no ability to abstract segments of their lives into little compartments. They're mostly very stupid people, even the richest aren't exactly bright rather unscrupulous.