Are there any intelligent refutations of socialist theory?

>Are there any intelligent refutations of socialist theory?
Dumb ones suffice.

You have too be kidding

also anime would never arise from a communist system

>Are there any intelligent refutations of socialist theory?

Try a history book.

This. Neither would Veeky Forums.
>inb4 "good"

>if I say 'inb4' it doesn't count

>and the vast planning that already takes place in market economies.
Do even you realize that this an argument AGAINST socialism, you dumb faggot? Planning under capitalism is possible because it uses prices, which would not exist in socialism.

says who

pic reltaed

I love communism now.

...

This is why /pol/fags should stick to /pol/ and stop shitposting outside of their containment board.

OP asked for book recomendations and the whole thread has maybe one rec.

He asked for refutations of a meme and he got meme refutations.

this
only /leftypol/ is allowed to shitpost here

gotta crack a few eggs to make an ommlete

Socialism by Ludwig von Mises
The Road to Serfdom by Fredrick Hayek
Struggle for the World by James Burnham

Define socialism. Do you believe that all businesses should be forced to work for the public good, as opposed to profit?

>Are there any intelligent refutations of socialist theory?

ITT, no.

Try Stirner or Nietzsche although that doesn't put off the good folk at leftypol

the road to serfdom was supposed to be a critique of socialism

Did you miss the part where OP found Austrians laughable?

I would support socialism if I lived in an all white country

Unfortunately, 99% of socialists advocate for demographic replacement and multiculturalism...which guarantees that socialism is impossible.

There are a lot of criticisms that could be leveled at communism, but the most fundamental one is probably the issue of its complete lack of incentives. Communism works fine in theory, but only when the theory conveniently ignores immutable aspects of human nature: people are more productive when they can get ahead; when they can't better their circumstances relative to everyone else's, they won't be as productive.

This is the reason Russia fell behind the west in the 1970s. Their economy grew rapidly when they were just moving country people into cities and building factories, but when they ran out of capacity, the lack of innovation saw them fall steadily behind the capitalist countries. They were lousy at innovating and couldn't increase their technological level, which as you probably know is the biggest factor in economic growth.

There are a lot of other problems with communism too. Countries have tried creating moneyless, classless societies, but they're doomed to failure because it's impossible to restrain humanity's natural tendency towards specialization and stratification. It always ends up a hypocritical mess.

cuz nothing says unbreakable brotherhood like the color of your skin.

the more homogeneous the culture is, the easier it is to implement socialism. i don't understand how you can deny that

>Calculation, Complexity and Planning
Still managerial and not entrepreneurial.

I don't deny that at all. I just don't connect skin color with cultural homogeneity, it's too superficial. All men won't suddenly become comrades just because people of different races have been expelled.

The one thing that I've always found convincing from Marx is that history is a record of endless class struggle. In the end, pure socialism will always be unattainable unless we stop yearning for hierarchy, which will never happen as long as resources are limited and desires aren't.

Tldr An all-white country is still going to have class divisions.

Marx and the Marxists are good as descriptive accounts of capitalism, but their is very little worth salvaging in their prescriptions. Read some anarchist literature by Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin, Goldman and Bookchin and their critiques of Marxism/ML(M)

obligatory

>I can say "collective tribal hunter-gathering is human nature" and it would be similarly stupid
It's not stupid, for hunter-gathering populations. Why do you think certain populations who were at the tribal stage just a few centuries ago have so much trouble adjusting to modern civilization, as opposed to populations with more established civilizations, like the Chinese?

Because human behavior, like any trait of a given population, changes overtime due to natural selection, depending on the particular environmental conditions the population lives in.

I eagerly await for the last "60s radicals" in academia to die out so that behavioral scientists and geneticists can stop hiding and for the current zeitgeist to shift away from "we r a blank slate lmoa"

>are there any intelligent refutations of socialist theory

Lenin Russia
Stalin USSR
Mao China
Pol Pot Cambodia
Castro Cuba
Kim Jung Un North Korea

ad nauseam

How do you respond to critiques of the vanguard party model of Leninism op?

I think the claim that the vanguard party functionally becomes a new upper class of intelligentsia is a fair critique. But moreover, can you reconcile the inevitable consequences of any new born revolutionary government? It is inevitably the few ideologically motivated individuals trying to lead the people into a utopia they have no interest in. Terror must exist, and once it has been employed it is very hard to remove from your political toolkit if you will.

What gives you the right to force a utopian project people have no desire for on them?

This only applies to revolutionary communism of course, if it can come around by another way these critiques don't apply.

Also (sincere curiosity here), under Socialist/communist models how does a person choose what sort of job or career they want to spend their life doing? Is it a personal decision or must the state assign a function? I feel like function assigning is necessary, as the Labour market must be controlled, however it doesn't sit right with me that choice of your life path might be taken away.

Please don't take me as a troll, I sincerely want to hear your counter arguments and discuss, these threads always devolve into shit meme discussions

>The Road to Serfdom by Fredrick Hayek
lmao dude if u try to control markets then it leads to genocide

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia

Y-yeah it's not like Yugoslavia collapsed to ethnic conflicts or anything

yes. it is materialism like any other economic theory.

s-so what different skin colors did those ethnicities have

How do you reconcile the refutation of the labour theory of value?
Race is more than skin colour.

None of them are white.

wrong
also not an answer

It's not wrong. Slavs aren't white. I'm also not the same person you're replying to, you brainlet.

>Are there any intelligent refutations of socialist theory?
you would think that 99% of economists would be Marxists if the theory had no issues with it.

>Slavs aren't white

What's the point of quoting my post without replying?

>quoting

That's what the symbol means. This board is 18+.

>implying

Go back to /b/, kid. Your "le greentext" meme doesn't belong here.

You're right but people will always be divided more by race/culture than class. I think Marxists are in denial of how important racial identification is to most people. Its such a deeply subconscious part of us - connecting more with people who look like us. No matter how primal it seems it's not something that can just be erased away.

Even in supposedly "multicultural" societies (which I think is the wrong term - I would moreso use "multiracial" because while different races are together, they don't really blend) you still see people separate themselves. They separate themselves in prisons, churches, schools - anywhere where they are free to associate they divide. Multiracialism destroys social trust and cohesion, which makes socialism so much harder, if not impossible to truly implement.

...

xD epic. Have an upvote, fellow /b/yard :)

>yard
>yard
>yard
>yard

There is little incentive if profit is not involved. Most people really don't care about others that much. I live in an apartment building, and most of the people living in it are meaningless to me. I wouldn't work just to help them out.

I'm le big dog and le this is my yard *raises Guy Fawkes mask*

yeah I'm sure ken thompson made unix because he wanted a good bonus at the end of the year
>wages are profit

Wages are usually profitous.

>"we r a blank slate lmoa"
no one thinks this anymore.
>I have no argument so I have to strawman
damaged leftshit
They're answer is "false consciousness," I wish I was making this up, but that's how deluded they are.

Socialism, Mises

Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society, The Fatal Conceit

Any socialist country should also be a pretty good live refutation.

>>"we r a blank slate lmoa"
>>I have no argument so I have to strawman

OP has already refuted the neé Anglos.

how are these downsides, literally

These works aren't heavily based on Austrian methods.

>how does a person choose what sort of job or career they want to spend their life doing? Is it a personal decision or must the state assign a function? I feel like function assigning is necessary, as the Labour market must be controlled, however it doesn't sit right with me that choice of your life path might be taken away.

Political theorist Veronica Roth presented a superb theory explaining this in her 500 page long essay from 2012 called Divergent.

Yes they are. They are based on the presuppositions of the Austrian formulae, that hence is problematic for a number of reasons based on their flawed epistemological perspective.

To me, the main problem with socialism is that the mechanisms needed to abolish (and keep abolished) so-called oppressive institutions like private property, money, and the state are at least as oppressive as said institutions.

For example, socialists advocate social ownership of most forms of property. This requires the existence of an institution capable of preventing any other group from asserting ownership over said property. Similarly, socialists want to abolish money and production for exchange. How can money be banned and remain that way? You need a sufficiently powerful surveillance institution to crush black markets and crypto-currencies. This all sounds an awful lot like bringing back the state, which socialism was supposed to abolish in the first place, except with a lot more restrictions on what types of contract may be formed.

There are many other difficulties with socialist societies and Marxist theory, like Marx's belief that fiat money can't be money, the vacuousness of his labor theory (value is defined to be socially necessary labor content, commodities have an exchange value, a value, a use value, and a price, some of which are not observable, etc.)

The ideas in those books are just common sense to economists now. It's easily acceptable by anyone of any epistemological streak.

>common sense
Pure absurditè. This concept of the reasonable idea, like the structures of capitalism you have come to love is your masochism, is no more than an illusion of the dogmatic group-think of Cultural Control. Even your premises here are based on resented impraises.

>if I spout enough empty buzzwords people will think I'm smart.

>everything fits into my apriori ideological framework

>reason and economics are just instruments of oppression

Right then.

Well, how can I ever refute the absolute reasonableness of unreasonableness?

Are you having trouble following me?
The opposite, actually. I say no one idea is exemplerary in the scope of reason, to be judged as reasonable to the reasonable in commonality. I say that the idea is in of itself, not by the standard of authority.

Your totalitarian duology is not representative of the metaphysical immaterial consciousness that, through expression, we thrust into the Cosmos of ideas. Rather, the reasonable is unreasonable! I say that that which can be elucidated by the misconception of the reasoned proposition is naught! That which is like the dormant, untenable, is the home of the Just approach and not the reasoned.

that's not what I was referring to, you fucking pseud.
> I say that the idea is in of itself
you're either extremely retarded, or are baiting.

I think you fried your brain on postructuralism or something.

You say the idea is at once one of reason or not of reason. Thus you approach the perspective at a duology, no?
An Idea is of course in of itself. Consider the Absurd Self. Not reasoned is the conflations of the madness in his methods with the rigid archetype of his phenomenological quallia, but rather it is not. So your idea of rigidity in this supposed duology of reasoned and not falls like the duology of experience. Hence the instability of the Austrian epistemological footing.

Ok, nobody take this bait now.

t.authoritarian personality

As soon as you are shown the invalidity of your position, and its hypocryphal contradiction in your own trail of thinking, you give up on it and denounce it as a heresy. This is why we Don't like to argue with you.

>Are there any intelligent refutations of socialist theory?
There are purely emotionalist appeals towards muh billions billions billions billions. If you're an intellectual coward or middling and willing to overlook the wider death toll of the actually existing actually governing economic system of the world, as most people are, that's generally enough. Capitalism however has no substantial response to socialist criticism of liberal economics as laid out by Marx and since expounded on. After years of fiddling about trying to simply keep the criticism itself quiet via violence including assassination, terrorism, and war their line is generally that all the things that capitalism is criticized for are actually good. This is the financiers talking to the servant population which, sleepwalking, follows.

myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/notes/Law-of-Value.html

This is totally misguided. Value and price are synonymous. The price placed on a good represents the value of the good to the person selling it. Money is the method of exchange.
All this article does is try to redefine value, but if it does that it changes the LTV anyway.

Marxism is neither intrinsically optimistic not pessimistic about human nature. Marx believed that what we call human nature comes from our understanding of social relations- to be pessimistic in this instance is merely to reflect the poor conditions of life in a particular epoch.

>The price placed on a good represents the value of the good to the person selling it
wat

Marx defines value to be socially necessary labor time, iirc. So the mudpie argument falls flat, for instance. In Marxist theory, price is an expression of exchange value, which describes how much of one commodity can be exchanged for another, but exchange value can't be directly observed or calculated, only inferred.

>You: Value and price are synonymous.
>Actual professor of economics: One thing that should be clear from the start is that the LoV does not assert is that "average market prices" for each market equal "labor values."

Try again.

I hate how Marxists attribute literally every death that happens due to geopolitics to capitalism. As if all the middle east situations happen because of capitalism. They never seem to appreciate that in a world where different states must compete for resources (i.e the real world) then yes, some people are going to get fucked. One world centrally planned government could fix it sure, but that's never going to happen

>muh imperialism muthafuka
>completely ignore the genocides, ethnic cleansings, and imperialism the USSR and PRC engaged in
Just because they were incapable of performing it on a global level like the US, doesn't grant them moral superiority. Economists have had numerous critiques and responses to socialism, you just seem incapable of reading anything not in your catalog of goodthink.

So it is a tautology, then.
Actual economists disregarded the LTV decades ago.

I've usually thought Marx was more "not even wrong" than wrong, yes. With that said, some useful currents came out of Marx's thought. But I don't think it's a very good theory, since it's nearly impossible to build good economic models with it.

>I hate how Marxists attribute literally every death that happens due to geopolitics to capitalism.
>when you don't even read the post
>As if all the middle east situations happen because of capitalism.
Of course it is dumbass
>They never seem to appreciate that in a world where different states must compete for resources (i.e the real world) then yes, some people are going to get fucked.
So there's nothing wrong with the billions and billion and billions and billions and billions personally strangled by Stalin and Mao?

what the fuck are you even saying you faggot? Speak properly, and define yourself, or fuck off.

Marx is a preeminent figure in most thought today, and started currents that have yielded great understanding. But his economic philosophy is outdated, or rather, was never really accurate.