The problem with arguing with Communists is that they are in general, economically illiterate...

The problem with arguing with Communists is that they are in general, economically illiterate. They (like most people) view capitalism as a form of government that exists on the opposite end of some spectrum from socialism. This is not so.

There is no such thing as a 'capitalist government' because any system that takes wealth from private citizens and redistributes it to others is antithetical to private ownership and trade. All governments do this to some degree. Thus, all governments are by their very nature socialist and the only difference between the US and Soviet governments for example would be in the breadth of their authority over the countries resources and who they choose to distribute them to. Even cronyism in capitalism comes as a result of governments having the authority to favor and then monopolize certain businesses over others. Such businesses would likely not wield such economic power without congressional meddling in the marketplace. In fact corporations themselves are an invention of the government, with their latest incarnation being are a response to the economic collapse of the 1930's by leftists who were attempting to distribute authority over the business to the whole of its working body.

Capitalism is not an imposed system like socialism, communism or even feudalism. It is just the natural state of human resource distribution in any settled civilization. Capitalism is a sociological system, not a political one.Successful governments are the ones that understand this and seek to work within this framework of human social evolution. Those that avoid that responsibility or seek to resist it entirely are the ones that fail and are washed away like a sunbather ignoring the tide.

I hope this cleared things up for you dirty, pinko, commie fucks.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>Capitalism
>natural

Maybe, but the predominant form of capitalism in the West is through the interaction of consumers, LLCs, and the government. Limited Liability Corporations are not even remotely a natural phenomenon, deriving their legitimacy from the rule of law, i.e the state.

This board is for people halfway through the first semester of a history degree who think they're smarter than they really are, not people halfway through the first semester of an economics degree who think they're smarter than they really are.

Both of you should get the rope.

This. Socialist Capitalism is where it's at.

define socialism.

>Not real capitalism

>hayek-color.jpg
>'economically illiterate'

top jej

Stop trying to control the market

The market is always being controlled by someone.

>property
>not enforced by the government

>he thinks private property exists under statism

That's exactly the point I was making

lol, okay bud. To every /pol/ster out there who thinks Hitler was some kind of economic genius: Nazi economy was predicated initially on massive engineering projects keeping people employed (ironically similar to the strategy of American liberals) and eventually on sapping resources from the places they invaded. If they Nazis had won their economy would have disintegrated in under a decade.

Oh boy, here come the commie semantic games. Pic related if you want to be so autistic.

Take "community as a whole" in any sense you like it still requires a governing body of some sort; be it federal, provincial or municipal.

>missing the point entirely

It's all real capitalism. Just functioning with less or more government interference. These things exist on a spectrum and even the Soviets had a signifigant capitalist economy running underneath their bloated and under-performing state economy ie the black market).

Property is enforced by one thing and one thing only: force. For the last 500 years, give or take federal governments have had a monopoly on force and have thus been the arbiters of property for good or ill.

It does if it's the policy of the state :^)

pic

Just picked up The Road to Serfdom from the library today, what am I in for?

Also requested The Great Transformation to balance it out.

Wouldn't the natural state of humans be more communal since that is where we evolved from. Also, phrases like natural state are rather meaningless, because it doesn't argue as to why we should be doing something.
Also, to say that monopolies arise exclusively from governmental interference is wishful thinking. Certain industries are vulnerable to monopolies either because it is easy for one compnay obtain all the product.

The forces of social evolution favor the efficiency of mutually beneficial trade over the inefficiencies of communal living. Even hunter gatherers had significant amounts of trade between tribal groups.

The point I'm making is that it's an inevitability. Humans have a limited capacity in a lot of ways, certainly with regards to governance. We also have limited energies. Why would we expend that energy fighting the tide of trade when we can accept it and work to make peoples loves better within that framework?

youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g
>It's as if today our outmost horizon was Capitalism with a human face
I thought Žižek was being stupid but then I met internet libertarians

yikes op, i agree commies tend to have a really bad understanding of economics, but you have a really bad understanding of economics and politics too


something that has some ok points but needs to be highly contextualised and is becoming increasingly irrelevant - also not an economics book

The Fatal Conceit is better to get into Hayek.

How to know when to disregard someone's opinion out of hand: they waste time typing out the special characters for zizek

THE FRANKFUHT SCHOOL ESSJAY DOUBLEYOU MAHXISTS SIMPLY DONT UNDAHSTAND BASIC ECANOMICS

>Wouldn't the natural state of humans be more communal
From my experience and observation humans are selfish and care for themselves before others, on the average. There are exceptions, but typically they'd rather pocket a day's earnings rather than distribute it among his fellow men.

Why don't you escape capitalism already?

No one is keeping you

He doesn't have the liberty to occupy the world freely because muh property

Social democracy is a capitalist system too though. It agrees with just about all of what you're saying, and builds upon it: it is literally improved capitalism.

Road to Serfdom was published in 1944. It's 2017: you're not debating Communists anymore.

Lol what a special little snowflake then

The only socialist countries are in the third world. I want to build socialism in the first world.

>Natural state

oh wait that thing civilization is designed to eliminate?

>lol, okay bud. To every /pol/ster out there who thinks Hitler was some kind of economic genius: Nazi economy was predicated initially on massive engineering projects keeping people employed (ironically similar to the strategy of American liberals) and eventually on sapping resources from the places they invaded. If they Nazis had won their economy would have disintegrated in under a decade.
Government spending in increasing infrastructure that eventually helps commerce is a valid way to expand the economy, the autobahn was a good choice to build when germans were out of work and needed cash, and the government wanted people in work and would benefit from a firmer method of travel via a system like the autobahn.

Capitalism is gibs muh dat the economic system its literally human instinctive behavior.

It would only turn the country into third world.

Social democrats are invariably fabians in denial. You ask them about the next fifty years and you get FALC pipe dreams and muh automashun smahs capitulism!!

the most successful capitalist countries are those with the largest governments

>the market always produces the right ammount of everything
Healthcare is better for society than for business owners, severely polluting methods of production are the opposite, the government ought to reward and subsidize the business's providing the thing good for society and penalizing the people providing things that are bad for society.

All regulation of industry would fall under this definition as a result of democraticlly elected governments implementing restrictions as banal and accepted as false advertising laws.

>From my experience and observation humans are selfish and care for themselves before others, on the average.
hm definitely doesn't sound like a thing capitalism could have anything to do with

Capitalism has produced many good things, minimizing the impact of the bad things produced via taxation and maximizing the benefit of merit goods via subsidy or public ownership will improve the state of the nation, Schools hospitals and roads make everyone better off, and moderate socialism (and in some cases not so moderate socialism in the NHS) have done wonders for my country.

If capitalism is the reason for this selfishness than explain why corruption and greed is not limited to capitalist societies.

>Government spending in increasing infrastructure that eventually helps commerce is a valid way to expand the economy
>Healthcare is better for society than for business owners

Many economists argue that even something like market innovation and entrepreneurship in the US is worse than it could be due to a lack of public welfare. An entrepreneur is far less likely to take a risk if they have absolutely nothing to fall back on should they fail.

Seems to be working and improving things right now, which is all that really matters. And if you're really concerned for the long term, then I would suggest you focus a bit more on sustainability, since that's a more pressing issue in the long run than how some social democrats fantasize about technology or whatever.

Sustainability is another buzzword fabians use to push us toward a command economy.

One step at a time is all that matters to you cretins.

>Many economists argue that even something like market innovation and entrepreneurship in the US is worse than it could be due to a lack of public welfare. An entrepreneur is far less likely to take a risk if they have absolutely nothing to fall back on should they fail.
I think what i was trying to get at is that government spending in order to gain economic growth is a completely valid tactic that is often ignored or villified in America, and i don't think that's a good thing at all.

>people using fabian as an insult
He won you fucking moron.

>Sustainability is another buzzword fabians use to push us toward a command economy.

Okay, now you're just talking out of your ass.

>One step at a time is all that matters to you cretins.

Well THAT I agree with. All I want as a social democrat is for comrade Stalin to make a comeback, but slowly.

>banks and investment firms
>natural

eat ass faggot. Banking and accrual of wealth is the root of capitalist evil. These things are not natural, nor may they ever be. If it is natural for man to reap wealth from another, then I'd rather die than live in such a disgusting, piggish hell.

You know, you don't have to use banks, right? In fact contemporary economics probably doesn't want you using banks so you can spend your money and contribute to the continuation of the production of bigger and better goods.

>Property is enforced by one thing and one thing only: force. For the last 500 years, give or take federal governments have had a monopoly on force and have thus been the arbiters of property for good or ill.

Demonstrate how private property is natural. It certainly wasn't natural when humans lived in hunter-gathering societies. And don't give me some bs like "oh but look how primitive they were," because that's an ad hominem. We're arguing naturality here, and nothing else.

this. Slavery is natural too. Right's are a human construction that lie in the confines of civilization. If you're good with natural shit, what's wrong with slavery?

>ignoring accrual of wealth
I'm talking banking as a collective pursuit, including investing. People like Morgan are the issue every anti-capitalist has with capitalism. Faggots that """worked""" doing little more than earning the wealth produced by the working class. If you abolish private property and abolish investment, there is no room for capitalism as it exists now.