"The socialist movement takes great pains to circulate frequently new labels for its ideally constructed state...

>"The socialist movement takes great pains to circulate frequently new labels for its ideally constructed state. Each worn-out label is replaced by another which raises hopes of an ultimate solution of the insoluble basic problem of Socialism—until it becomes obvious that nothing has been changed but the name. The most recent slogan is "State Capitalism." It is not commonly realized that this covers nothing more than what used to be called Planned Economy and State Socialism, and that State Capitalism, Planned Economy, and State Socialism diverge only in non-essentials from the "classic" ideal of egalitarian Socialism."

What are some counterpoints to this because I'm inclined to agree with him.

none, Mises destroyed Marx

He's just strawmanning.

>cant come up with a counter argument
>name drop a logical fallacy

He has it perfectly wrong. The labels for the hated state change. State capitalism was an insult meant to imply the USSR was not a worker’s state, not some term to describe a desired outcome. Mises, like all the most rabid anti-socialists, didn’t bother to read any socialist texts beyond the communist manifesto.

>What are some counterpoints
None, because there are no practical points. He's right in a sense, you could say. If the term "right" can be applied to something as completely devoid of any practical meaning and application as libertarianism.

The socialist movement resulted to a throng of widely popular policies, solutions and systems. Libertarianism resulted in a Cold War propaganda appliance. Here's your conterpoint.

>you didnt read marx!

He is absolutely wrong. He believes that the changes in the name of these solutions still represent the same thing which is completely wrong. Socialism never needed to rebrand itself in any way whatsoever. For example the term state capitalism was used by Left-Coms to insult the USSR by making it seem like it wasn't socialist.

>The most recent slogan is "State Capitalism." It is not commonly realized that this covers nothing more than what used to be called Planned Economy and State Socialism.
It's not commonly realized because the notion that state capitalism would be the same as planned economy and state socialism is ludicrous.

>muh brainlet meme
Not an argument.

State capitalism is not an insult, it's a perfectly legit ideology and system. Just because buttblasted trotskyists and anarchists use it as an insult it doesn't make it such.

>the term state capitalism was used by Left-Coms to insult the USSR by making it seem like it wasn't socialist.

It wasn't used to "insult". It was used to deny that the Left's politics could possibly produce a totalitarian society, and thereby they could refuse to accept any responsibility for what happened in that state during its existence.

>Mises calls out socialist for using the "not real socialism!" argument all the time
>unironically respond with "that wasnt real socialism!"
>claim you arent a brainlet

>diverge only in non-essentials
There's nothing to refute unless he expands further on this. As it stands it's just a claim with no argument backing it up.

The Soviet Union was self admittedly capitalist. They claimed (following marx) that they needed a capitalist transistory state

We have a, somewhat, planned economy. Pumping trillions into government functions creates wildly distorted expectations of investment return and the "inherent" stability of the retirement/pension system.

The USA has capitalism at its fringes and nooks and cranny while multiple large corporations can count on the blessings of government bids and contracts. Government workers constitute a (massive) subset of subsidized bourgeois who are able to outlay massive amounts of money (when taken as a whole). Hell, their incentive is not to do their job well but to use the maximum budget and look more valuable than they actually are.

The whole LBGTQ was driven less by an expansion of Normies empathy and driven more by the fact that agencies could engage in virtue signaling behavior As A Function of their work. While still getting paid the same. In fact it opens up the potential for budget expansion now that another protected class of people need to be pandered to.

CONT

We are seeing the fruits of our technocrats rational democracy bloom. And the stench is so awful that most people accept it as business as usual and not as a historical anomaly.

We are getting less done with more money, even accounting for inflation, across the board. I hope Tainter's book wasn't too prescient on the eventual fate of our society.

On the other hand, we have miracles like the massive reduction of deaths from trauma, at least in regards to violent crime. On the other other hand, we waste trillions on treating acute physical problems when a sensible dietary and exercise regime would be far cheaper. People would literally be healthier if all they ate was eggs and bacon as a 1x single meal during the day. People would literally be healthier if they avoided eating bread and grain carbs in general.

>>The USA has capitalism at its fringes
Can you be more clear and say free markets or something instead of trying to claim true capitalism is libertarian style instead of corpratist
style. People need to be really specific with their terms describing economic systems or it makes the shit flinging even worse than normal.

Free markets then. But even when you don't see obvious collusion/the acceptance of contracts, you can always count on our clandestine agencies to pay them under the table. As I said, at the fringes and crooks and crannies.

It doesn't help that public schools are some of the greatest scams of all time. When you think about money misallocated...

Even more importantly, when you think of all the cognition misused and wasted on bureaucratic pageantry. If I were emperor of the world, American public school administrators would be crucified all along the Mexican border. They really are that incompetent with the priceless value of a young mind.

Given how the principal economic action in return on invested capital, and political states do not function in a manner that seeks to maximize this in a capitalist manner rather than a political one, its pretty much a paradox. A job in public administration is not born out of a pure capitalistic process, but out of a political one.

> government workers
> bourgeois
uhh, nobody involved primarily in wage labour is bourgeois

Thought that was means of production? It's a word that doesn't mean anything anyways so fuck it

They are paid a, middle middle class
to upper middle class, living that enables them to spend more money on more frivolities than French bourgeois ever did. They have the backing of a government pension, the true social security but given only to the chosen, which protects them from the most perilous effects of economy wide cycles. I consider them a part of the American bourgeois.

It's not wage labor. Wage labor is flipping burgers and standing up for hours in a row and at the risk of being fired at will at any time.

Wage labor is not being guaranteed a permanent job (can't really fire a government worker out of government. Relocation at worst), wage labor is not spending most of your workday on Facebook. Strangely, the productivity of the bureaucracy isn't changed. Wage labor is not looking towards a generous pension with almost no risk of default.

He didn't make and argument. He didn't point out any problems with Socialism, he just said they change their name a lot, thats true for various conservative ideologies as well (although he blatantly conflated various words that have distinct definitions).

Wage labor is labour of which a wage is paid, and the employer keeps rest of the created value. Wage labour, not proletariat, are social terms meant to be used as a stand in for working class, poor people or bad jobs. It is a term of political economy meant to describe those who sell their labour to someone else.

The bourgeois are a class of people who live off of the profits of their owned capital. That's it. The French bourgeoise of the time were wealthier in absolute and relative terms to modern middle class jobs in US - the former could spend a third of their year traveling or own various villas around France, the latter could not.

What is it even with your beef with public pensions? One of the key elements why large public pension schemes are a good thing for the economy is how they avoid the effects of economy wide cycles, evening out peaks.

>annihilates your entire ideology

The problem is that, without a profitable frontier, such schemes become ponzi pyramids. Assuming that we don't receive an exponential profit from the exploitation of new frontiers (space, ocean,?), a lot of people are going to be completely burned by the first US default in the next 20-40 years. And I feel like I'm being conservative in that estimation.

CONT

You forget we have multiple wolves that have been baying for decades but actual defense is expensive. We have a population that is simply getting less healthy and with smaller and smaller pools of men for the Military to choose from. We promote terrible diets, and feed children terrible diets, because most of society is convinced by the scientific cargo cultism that surrounds popular notions of nutrition. We have a crumbling infrastructure that will cost trillions to fix. We have trillions in college debt that will never be paid off. And now you want the government to pay more trillions to support old faggots? They would rather burn you at the most opportune time than execute their hollow legal obligations.

The only reason federal employees haven't been burned is that this isn't the most opportune time. The government will seek to discharge as much as it can I a short period of time, preferably in the middle of some crisis.

Today isn't the most opportune time. Maybe tomorrow.

CONT

And honestly, I think the declining health of Americans is a far greater danger than anything else. Higher ideals, higher values, and higher cognition are borne by an even more Supreme constitution. People pretend that their actions and morality are diticated by a monolithic evaluative mechanism in the brain. They don't understand how diets can alter rates of learning, rates in synaptic growth and response, speed of 3-D visualization and rotation, etc. All the dreadful moralists then speak of how people need more discipline in diet. Those jackasses of human cognition! But we have a hormone, Leptin, that is chucked by high-caliber high-protein diets (virtually all American wheat flour is fortified with iron), that actually works. You don't need to count calories or follow stupid 90s Era fad diets. You lose interest in food naturally. It's a miracle to feel.

What the fuck ha ha

Cucked by high-carb high-iron diets*

Ah yes the tu quoque, much better to double down on the fallacy, why get out of the mud when you can roll in it eh?

>he said, as he doubled down on his fallacy

>bad diet causes stupidity and immorality

Kellog? is that you? I thought you were dead

>Libertarianism resulted in a Cold War propaganda appliance.
Pls explain am interrested

look nigger should I eat more bread or not

States by there very nature and definition are force and hence thus not capitalism. As juxtapositionative as 'state-capitalism' is, ultimately, its an oxymoron. Mises is saying straight pure and simple the folly of socialism relies on a slave mentality where people are coerced, opted in by force, and in a axiomatically sustainable society ultimately statism and thus socialism doesn't exist. And instead you have it replaced by an intellectual(ly) free elite, which is the march history rises towards in cycles of destruction and enlightenment. Enough difference left over that we call progress.

Plato talks about this (socialism btfo)
Nietzsche
Lord Acton
E h Carr
Mises
Huxley

All ultimately talk about the same thing but I think the hard-line truth is to evolve as a whole the species needs to cull and what necessary evils are acceptable recourses to this ultimate goal/aim.

Personally this type of ultimate technocracy operating at full collective human potential of automation can more effeciently be brought about by pure capital, like flowing water, as it most accurately syncs with human nature. Rather the artificial constructs that statism (bad - hinders final outcome) induces.

"state capitalism" is not a different term for an "ideally constructed state". it was first a name for a very different form of economic planning 9for the soviets, anyways) and then a pejorative term for an actually existing state (the soviet one).
Mises will need to clarify which names he refers to.

>left libertarians are responsible for the USSR

If you have impaired brain functioning, in tandem with insulin resistance, in a high-carb high-iron diet.... Well yeah your ideals are borne upon a certain rate of calculation and evaluation. If you think slower, you probably don't have the patience to interrogate ideas that seem sound but need thought to verify.

You're combining terrible diets with modes of transport that anesthesize the body further and then with modes of posture that weaken you further (sitting and standing for hours without much bipedal activity)....it affects the quality of thought.

both of you misunderstand the quote. he is not saying that state capitalism was a term used to describe the desired outcome or ideally constructed state. he is saying that socialists use that term to separate what actually happened from their ideal/desired outcome

Nah. At least American bread. I emphasize iron because most invaders of the body don't bring their own supply of iron. They commandeer it from the host blood supply. Bloodletting actually worked in sporadic cases of sicknesses that sound like chronic bacterial infections. I guess cutting off their iron supply cuts down on their reproduction l.

CONT

And try a high-fat high-protein diet (max 30g carbs). Experiencing Leptin actually working, to greatly increase lack of interest in further food, is a feeling that few Americans have actually felt. Also practice IF.

There's a thing called national budget surplus and it's pretty desirable you know.

Has the Austrian school been able to prax out why 95% of its members are white men?

Past examples of socialism are irrelevant, automation and AI will create a workable socialist state.

why should they concern themselves with your racism?

They should concern themselves with the fact that their theoretically universal ideology in reality only appeals to a very narrow slice of the population, and it ain't racism to point that out.

Socialism would have you believe all people and ideas are born equal but those of a more enlightened nature aren't that naive nor apologetic about it. It's just a Frankenstein affect where you require a certain escape velocity to escape the weighted gravity of masses on this planet that should never be considered when one listens to. Its 'infinitely easier to kill then subvert' in this day and age and we must free our shackles of being archaicly weighed down by modalities of ages past.

Youre implying because it was written by x it only applies to x. Youre a retard and excluded but not because ur a nigger but because ur dumb dipshit.

>because it was written by x it only applies to x

Wait, that sounds sensible? I'm not the other user, plz no bully

almost all progress in physics was made by white males, does that mean theories in physics only apply to white males?

The law of gravity was formulated by a white male (Newton), but it applies to everybody equally, regardless of whether they believe it or not.

Physics exists and applies whether or not we investigate it. The Austrians are just a fringe group.

>Physics exists and applies whether or not we investigate it.
So does human nature mate. A system that flawlessly has application to all cases is hardly fringe. Your choice to be ruled by ignorance or rule with knowledge hombre.

t. Mises worshiper

Except the pejorative use only began circulation in 1955, while Von Mises book on socialism saw its last edition in 1951 and its first edition was in 1922, when state capitalism really was a slogan that the bolsheviks were pushing

>t its cool to be retarded

t. self righteous pseudoscientist

>gravity is the same as social systems

Lysenkoism at work. You are literally too stupid to argue with. Physics =| Socio-Economics

Oh here's one: if a literal retard and I are doing a quiz we'll score the same because gravity affects us both equally, thus we're equals.

he wasn't arguing that gravity is the same as social systems or that physics is the same as socio-economics.

>Thinking that was Mises' argument
>making a strawman of his statement
Wew lad

what point are you even trying to make

Stop projecting on me, subspecies.

That just because gravity works it doesn't mean all people are equal. See this here:

>law of gravity was formulated by a white male (Newton), but it applies to everybody equally, regardless of whether they believe it or not

^ the ultimate "no shit" moment

>almost all progress in physics was made by white males, does that mean theories in physics only apply to white males?

Which has fuck all to do with economics or social programs

they are arguing against this that just because something was written by someone means it only applies to them. that is something they are disagreeing with and showing gravity/physics as something which shows that sort of reasoning to be flawed.

you can say that socio-economics is different, which is obviously true, but that isn't what they were talking about. if you want to refute what they were talking about then explain how socio-economic writings only apply to the people that wrote it.

>you can say that socio-economics is different, which is obviously true
Yes that's the crux of the argument it seems. I mean it leads up to this asshole here
having a point at all.

It does seem like systems best for different cultures and people depend on the people and cultures themselves. Take the farming collective idea: worked great for the Jewish kibbutz and terrible for the Russian obshchina.

He's just making an observation

no argument is being made

you can agree with the observation or disagree.

you misunderstood me. by different I just meant they are about different things. of course they are not the same subject matter. that alone doesn't give that guy any point. the thing that would give him a point is if they were different with respect to whether or not it applies to more than just the people that wrote it.

you're trying to make the case for that second difference in your post right now but not doing a good job because economic theories do take into account why some things work at certain times and don't work at other times. obviously culture has a lot to do with that but that doesn't restrict the economic writings to one culture because cultures can shift to make different economic systems viable. so to say that one particular school of economic only applies to white people is silly not just because there are many variations in white people and their cultures but also because non white people and cultures could change in a way to make their writings viable.

that is still not different from physics because part of economic theories is that there are underlying principles that apply to people at all times in all places. jut because the economic system is not viable at a particular time does not mean that it will never be viable for certain people. that is what makes it universal in the same way that physics is.

at least, that is how good economic theories should be. I'm not an advocate of what mises was arguing for. I'm just making the case that theories in economics and physics aren't different in that way we're talking about

A budget surplus is only desirable for paying off budget deficits; whether those deficits are in the past or future is irrelevant.

Never trust a Jewish "economist"

Only insofar as it affects the interest rate on debt. With no dividends to pay, exit strategies or investors around, the bottom line hardly matters -

Economics does not study "human nature", it studies supply and demand of products given finite resources.

Can anyone itt give a definition of Socialism, State Socialism, State Capitalism, and Planned Economy?

I would disagree; macroeconomics is essentially the study of human nature in the face of scarcity.

>Socialism
In essence, positive liberalism. Socialism considers "freedom" as the active removal of obstacles to the citizenship's aspirations. Contrast this with classical liberalism, where "freedom" is seen as noninterference with the citizenship.

>State Socialism
Socialism coordinated at the state level, rather than by private groups.

>State Capitalism
Market economy with government monopolies on certain services and sectors. Single-payer healthcare with a private sector for elective and outpatient services not covered by the government plan is an example.

>Planned Economy
Government has complete control over price setting, rather than letting the forces of supply and demand create an equilibrium price.

>tfw everyone reads lolbertarian criticisms of Marxism so internet arguments are always fought between different varieties of fringe autists

Read Main Currents of Marxism. Far better critique and takedown of Marxism than anything to come from a goldbug.

I'm op and I've already read all three volumes of that. I just came across this quote while I was looking into Ralf Dahrendorf. I'm not a fan of Mises but I never came across a position like this so I wanted to see what people thought.

btw, this thread isn't even about marxism. it's about socialism.

this is what middle class marxist soyboys tell themselves to make themselves feel better

Marx said the middle class was the bourgeois and that the French Revolution and the 1848 spring were bourgeois revolutions to overthrow the aristocrat class. You are retarded.

and how are each of the 4 things actually different in terms of the economy?

Anyone who supported the USSR from the start of its existence til its end are at least tacitly responsible.

The same is true of people who supported National Socialism between 1933-1945.

Socialism=no private property, state owns everything

state socialism=socialism

state capitalism=socialism, but the state uses all the industry they own to turn a profit

planned economy=when the state deceiced and controls what the economy will do. In other words, the type of economy any socialist state will have

anyone who argues against this is a leftnut who will bog down the conversation in sophistry and their autistic and petty rhetoric, like they do all the time.

>"The socialist movement takes great pains to circulate frequently new labels for its ideally constructed state. Each worn-out label is replaced by another which raises hopes of an ultimate solution of the insoluble basic problem of Socialism—until it becomes obvious that nothing has been changed but the name.

no, hes literally calling out the "not muh real socialism!" argument user. GG brainlet

Socialism has nothing to do with the economy, it's more of a set of principles to guide a government. State capitalism and planned economies are similar, the different is their scope. A planned economy is total government control, while state capitalism is partial control over sectors that are deemed essential.

>t. libertardian

>while state capitalism is partial control over sectors that are deemed essential.
state capitalism is just when the state owned manufacturers turn a profit user.

t. no argument

>Socialism has nothing to do with the economy

Your post was so wrong you're either trolling or you've drunk the government unregulated Kool-Aid. Either way trying to argue is pointless.

Except it isnt. And its pretty clear from the other anons complete ignorance of what state capitalism is, that you faggots have literally no idea what you are talking about and Mises was right about you. Maybe you should actually try reading about this shit rather than consuming shitty leftypol memes all the time.

>Socialism has nothing to do with the economy

>Either way trying to argue is pointless.
Also, this is just you tapping out already. Stormfags literally use this exact same response when you challenge them on their bullshit and they have nothing else to throw at you.

>The FDA creates economic policy.

>Socialism has nothing to do with the economy

Denmark, Canada, the Soviet Union, and modern China are all "socialist." Explain how they have such wildly varying economic policies if socialism is an economic policy.

user, youre a fucking idiot for saying socialism has nothing to do with the economy. Theres no escaping it. You just need to realize what a huge fuck up that was on your part, learn from your mistake, and then go study it.

>Denmark and Canada are socialist
oh my god user, please just stop posting.

>Socialism has nothing to do with the economy

He is saying that socialists like to give socialism new labels to pretend that it is something else to sell it to other people. The muh no true socialism is the idea that socialists says something isn't socialism by replacing it with another label to deny any affiliation from whatever it is towards socialism. Dumbass please learn to read