A question for libertarians and free marketeers + state capitalism doesn't work myth

So we always here free-marketeers and libertarians say that government programs don't work. But if a Soviet style, bureaucratic, planned economy doesn't work then explain to me why:

Russia was transferred from a feudal, medievalist country to a space faring nation in merely 40 years.

National Socialist Germany produced the most advanced weaponry, rockets and technology and huge advances in sciences in general.

During Stalin Russia spiked massive population growth of about 2 / 3 million a year.

Soviet Union constructed some of the most technologically advanced transport craft
(Antonov An-225 largest plane ever, 60 year old Soyuz Space-rockets still being used today by NASA, ak-47 the most used rifle in the world, T-55 most produced tank in the world.)

Russia rapidly became an industrialized world superpower armed with nuclear weapons, nuclear submarines, etc. Send the first man and satellite into space. (Yes, many of it was from stolen national socialist-tech, but the national socialists were also not free-market and had a state economy that produced such advanced tech.)

Also please explain the rapid growth of the Chinese economy, living conditions, science and military, which is also not free-market but state-capitalism (or more fascist economy.)

And not to forget the giant rebuilding of Germany, it's nation, it's military and it's country after the Wallstreet crash of 1929.

Some of the largest constructions in the world have been made with state-subsidy.

It seems to me the free-market sucks at big advances and leaps in mankind. It was NASA that made the first men step on the moon. Now that NASA's budget has been radically reduced and more space industry is privatized, the space-race was ended. Yes, we have SpaceX now, but if it wasn't for NASA contracts, they wouldn't survive. SpaceX =/= free market so you can't use that as an argument. SpaceX is building upon tech that was created through bureaucracy of government projects.

so explain pls

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Economic_Zones_of_China
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value
youtu.be/QEJ9HrZq7Ro
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

when india used the soviet style it got noewhere, when we started to use usa system we got at least something.

socialism, marxism, russian style are all gone.

because muh ebil gommunism and muh gobbmint can't do anything right (except the Internet, roads, defense, fire departments, police, and anything else we like but don't want to attribute to government)
REMEMBER THE 100 BILLION TRILLION!!!!1!!

Oy vey!! Shut it down! the goyum know.

Soviet Union used nazi scientists to get anywhere. Pleas note how they quickly advanced after the nazi defeat (not before). And as the nazi scientists started to lose their effectiveness, the soviet scientific advance also halted.

China got somewhere as it agreed to be slaves to the rest of the world, and switched communism with corrupt capitalism.

Space X is overrated, look at project skylon for the real future.

Also, i'm not a complete libertarian, i believe governements should have scientific programs, but in the color of capitalism.

There has never been capitalism without a strong state.

State can get shit done fast.
Free Market can make your life (and everybody else's) better.

Take your pick, mix a little bit from column A and a little bit from column B, whatever. Personally I'd rather live in Switzerland or Singapore. Up to you, son.

Singapore has a pretty authoritarian state, too.

Authoritarian =/= big. I'm not opposed to dictators or absolute monarchs as long as they don't get into my business as an individual. That said Singapore is completely retarded when it comes to homosexuality (lesbians are ok tho) and drugs.

I never said 'big' man. I just find it ironic to be pro-money freedom and against people-freedom.

You can be the most reactionary asshole dictator for all I care, but as long as you respect my private property I'm cool with it: and in my private property I should be allowed to receive blowjobs from my harem of traps while snorting weed and shooting down lawn gnomes with my AK-47.

The problem is not ethical, it's practical. People won't choose a system just because it fits your interest or life-style choices.

None of the shit we discuss in this board is practical. Practical are the goverments we have nowadays in our countries, otherwise they wouldn't be.

Going back to the Singapore thing, I believe you can't have people-freedom unless you have money-freedom. I can't express my ideas without the tools and resources needed for it, and if those tools and resources are state-granted then we have a problem (ie. we all can have blogs, but I can't have my own pirate radio station). With this in mind I consider economic freedom a very basic pillar of liberty without which every other freedom is but a mirage.

So yay don't-dare-spit-your-bubblegum-to-the-ground Singapore!

>That said Singapore is completely retarded when it comes to homosexuality (lesbians are ok tho) and drugs.

Really? I had no idea.

>we all can have blogs, but I can't have my own pirate radio station
That's because other big radio owners have lobbied for legislation to make this illegal. It's capitalist regulation. Same as copyrights.

>Soviet Union constructed some of the most technologically advanced transport craft
>(Antonov An-225 largest plane ever, 60 year old Soyuz Space-rockets still being used today by NASA, ak-47 the most used rifle in the world, T-55 most produce

Communist Russia could barely even feed itself, and Russia used slave labor, the actual Russian/Soviet citizens to complete massive infrastructure programs like salt mines and railroads through the frozen wastelands. Soviet Union was a dystopian corrupt dictatorship and it collapsed on itself

>Also please explain the rapid growth of the Chinese economy, living conditions, science and military, which is also not free-market but state-capitalism (or more fascist economy.)

Concept of 'freedom' non-existent in China. As long as you repudiate freedom and liberty you may use china as an example. Chinese people living conditions arguably have not improved much. (Suicide nets around the factories, because of the miserable long hours and pitiful low pay) China as a nation at war is successful (glorious military, buying up Africa/Australia/Canada etc) but the life for the average Chinese schmuck is not that great, if you are even born which is in doubt when you consider the 'one child policy"

>And not to forget the giant rebuilding of Germany, it's nation, it's military and it's country after the Wallstreet crash of 1929.

Germany worked, once, for a 12 year period of time. Not much to go on, and the economy of Germany at that time was a hybrid free-market/command economy for the most part.

Look at the other command economies of the world, and you see a list of complete retardation and disaster for the country and the people (Zimbabwe, South Africa, Venezuela, Cuba) I could spend hours making that list of failure. Not to mention command economies often combine economic massive retardation and genocide (Cambodia)

Big radio owners and copyright holders are powerless without a state willing to enforce their demands because some politician in charge owes them. What we need to do there is reduce the power of the state and stop politicians from making laws for their friends.

Free market means no regulation other than customer satisfaction.

Pragmatic libertarianism isn't so much a form of government as it is a philosophy that can be applied to a number of government structures to keep them small.

Protect people, enforce contracts, provide basic & necessary collective services, perhaps even modest social welfare for those in desperate need and fuck off for the rest.

Without a state to enforce their demands, we don't have capitalism. You just killed their profits. In a truly balanced free society no-one would be making the profits we see now. So, if you're anti-capitalist and anti-statist, you should be an anarchist, not an authoritarian.

The Soviet Union ran on sheer manpower and a disregard of human life, allowing them to use a planned economy to allocate resources to hollow science projects while people starved on the streets queueing for bread.
Nazi Germany was running a budget deficit of 50 billion marks by the outbreak of WWII and had to resort to slave labour to produce munitions after all of the strong German men were dying in Russia and Nazi propaganda told women that they weren't supposed to work and so women didn't want to work in factories. Germany was rebuilt in years after WWII by Erhard who tore down regulations and tariffs, allowing for the free market to flourish which resulted in a booming German economy in the years after the war while the United Kingdom, whose government exploited the war to expand its socialist regulations, stagnated and still had rationing for years after the war.

>Protect people, enforce contracts, provide basic & necessary collective services, perhaps even modest social welfare for those in desperate need and fuck off for the rest.
Which of those things is yours to give or take away? They only exist because of collective effort.

...

I am not suggesting collectuve effort isn't often necessary. Governance requires a civil society. It is hard to argue that, at some point, practical matters require a group with common interests to form a government.

It is also hard to argue that, very quickly, government begins to feed and serve its own power vs. serving the civil society.

I don't defends governments or statism. I'm just saying it's necessary for the rest of our economic system to work. It's actually very hard to make (big) profits in capitalism so you need to secure your profits. In a complete free market, companies wouldn't last a year.

>In a truly balanced free society no-one would be making the profits we see now
Surplus value is a mistake, it doesn't take into account entrepreneurial risk and investment.

Without a state to enforce lobbies demands by force they'll have to go to a court of law like everybody else, no fair treatment, no state-sponsored oligopoly/crony capitalism. And in case it ain't obvious yet I'm an ancap fag.

>Russia was transferred from a feudal, medievalist country to a space faring nation in merely 40 years.

And North Korea is a nuclear nation with a strong military. Yet outside of Pyongyang their population is starving.

>
Also please explain the rapid growth of the Chinese economy, living conditions, science and military, which is also not free-market but state-capitalism (or more fascist economy.)

China's economy didn't really take off until they set up their Special Economic Zones along their coasts:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Economic_Zones_of_China

These zones were basically modeled after the economic model of Hong Kong: free trade, free markets, limited government intervention. They places where China's economy is strong are more libertarian than any Western country.

>It seems to me the free-market sucks at big advances and leaps in mankind

Yet every person on this board probably owns a smartphone that they can shitpost on Sup Forums with while walking their dog.

>account entrepreneurial risk and investment

There would be none of those things without "surplus value" or whatever.. Let's just call it profit.

Also, I find your conception of the courts you mention as "Deus-ex-machina" to keep your system balanced. Why not add incorruptible samurais instead?

Ironically China is like a stereotype of evil capitalism, unions are illegal there and working conditions so bad they need to put nets around the factories to stop people jumping off the roof.

You should also probably not use Stalin or Hitler as an example of how to benefit your country.

This 2bh senpai

The most absolute elder-got tier GOAT economic policy is Fascism. No meme.

Stalin did benefit his country. That's a neutral opinion here and widely accepted before the Cold War.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value

Judges in Ancapistan could be easily corrupted, but their career as judges would be over since nobody in their right mind would hire them again or ask them to mediate in any other issue. And private judges were the standard before modern state turned them into government workers.

Yeah, I wasn't implying that you made up the term "surplus value".. Anyway, it's all very far from reality the way I see it.

>Stalin did benefit his country.

A common worker's real wages were reduced by up to 90% under Stalin.

Libertarians are parasites. They want all the benefits of statism without paying a dime in taxes or feeling bound by any laws.

Russia was already industrialised before 1917. Which class do you think made the revolution possible, the peasants?

True. Capitalism is about property rights: they does not exist in nature. Property rights are a social construct and need to be protected by a state in order to exist.

the toothpaste twins are teaming up to tell us about how great statism is

Reminder that I didn't say his people. His country did become a superpower.

fair enough. what's a country if not the people living in it though?

Personal property might exist (we fake something we need to survive in nature) but complex legal ccorporations, offshore banking, logistical money etc. do not.

*take something

Property rights isn't the biggest problem for capitalists (it's a given). How to make money from this property (especially capital) is a bitch and requires an army of lawyers and state officials and cops to happen.

Territory exists arbitrarily. That doesnt stop a Gorilla from beating you senseless and letting you know that THIS PLACE is HIS PLACE.

"A right of property in moveable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands, not till after that establishment. The right to moveables is acknowledged by all the hordes of Indians surrounding us. Yet by no one of them has a separate property in lands been yielded to individuals. He who plants a field keeps possession till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it. Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated, and their owner protected in his possession. Till then, the property is in the body of the nation, and they, or their chief as trustee, must grant them to individuals, and determine the conditions of the grant." --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812

>Pleas note how they quickly advanced after the nazi defeat (not before)
What?

>So we always here free-marketeers and libertarians say that government programs don't work.

I'd argue that most libertarians would say that government is immoral first and foremost, the fact that it doesn't work very well is secondary.

>Russia was transferred from a feudal, medievalist country to a space faring nation in merely 40 years.

Space faring nations are simply large nations with large tax bases, because space exploration is expensive. Arrange countries by size/population/tax base and look at which are space faring, it's the ones with large tax bases.

>National Socialist Germany produced the most advanced weaponry, rockets and technology and huge advances in sciences in general.
Pressures of war.

>Soviet Union constructed some of the most technologically advanced transport craft
Also pressures of war.

Any country through external pressure such as war can go through periods of extreme growth and productivity because the government spends a huge amount of money and goes into debt in order to further technoloigical progress, make weapons or whatever. But it leaves the country in a bad financial sitation afterewards.

it's like saying explain how a poor person has a house, well they took out a massive loan and they bought a house, that doesn't show prosperity necessarily because they're left with massive debt As Russia, Germany and the USA all were post WW2

You actually proved him right; it's a social construct judging by your excerpt. But no big deal, most things are social constructs and they're perfectly valid. The thing is, are they useful to society? If not, society should abolish them.

>Soviet Union used nazi scientists to get anywhere
Bullshit, the US stole all the Nazi scientists. Heard of Wehrner von Braun?
youtu.be/QEJ9HrZq7Ro

> and in my private property I should be allowed to receive blowjobs from my harem of traps while snorting weed and shooting down lawn gnomes with my AK-47.
Agreed fαm

There were thousands of Nazi scientists

>A separate property in lands, not till after that establishment.
>Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated, and their owner protected in his possession.
Thanks for proving my point.

I seriously do not get why people think
>social construct
is a bad thing. CIVILIZATION itself is a social construct.

You must have missed the "a right of property in moveable things is admitted before the establishment of government" part.

"Property rights" is a hydra-headed concept. Rights to parcels of land or intellectual property rights cannot exist without government. But a right to movable property exists without government as a natural right.

Because it's overused. Social constructs are meant to serve some purpose. Tumblr has extended this to useless stuff.

I wasn't trying to debunk your point aquafresh, more pointing out that you're only half right, see

I literally stated that personal property is a natural right, in my previous post.

I would even say that a parcel of land, a home, the machinery you use, is also your property by right of using them. But if you use this machinery or land together with other people, then it should be theirs too. It's your common property. Not bad.

OP I strongly recommend the book Why Nations Fail -- there's a fair bit of focus on the Soviet experience.

>For 40 years the Soviet Union was indeed a growth miracle, but it was a spectacularly unsustainable one based on extractive political and economic institutions. The powerful Soviet state could generate large productivity increases by moving people from rural areas and putting them into factories. But the system totally failed to generate incentives for improving productivity or for innovation except in military areas where they put a huge amount of resources.

Inevitably the Soviet economy ultimately collapsed. When people were not forced to buy the goods Soviet industry produced, they went out of business, and now the Russian economy is held up not by the benefits of centrally planned industrialization but by high natural resource prices.

And not one of them ended up in the USSR because they all ran West.

That's the essence of communalism or anarcho-collectivism. It alludes to pre-modern societies. In more modern societies with heavy differentiation in the economy, we would say that you don't only own the things you specifically work with, but the whole line of production, since it's difficult to say who did what exactly. That's the principle of communism in property.

That's amazing misrepresentation of historical facts.

It is true that countries with planned economy are good at achieving single goal at any cost.
Sure they launched first satellite and achieved production capacities for war-time equipment only comparable to US. However, this led to other economic sectors being completely neglected.

In 70 years of communism, while having some of the most fertile lands in the world, USSR never managed to ensure stable supply of food.
While having much oil supply of the world, only very small portion of population could own civilian vehicles (even in late 80's).
In all those years there was always shortage of basic consumer good, like toilet paper, clothes, etc.

Population growth was high in all countries after WW2.

Economic growth stagnated during Mao's years in China. China boomed AFTER markets were freed substantially, this only shows that free markets perform better than controlled ones. And the fact that state-capitalism performed so good in China and nazi Germany doesn't show how superior state intervention is to free markets. On the contrary, It just shows how much better economy performs when it is free (as opposed to controlled like in USSR or China during Mao).

Free-markets are prone to produce surplus and planned ones tend to experience shortage. This could be seen in all communist countries: North Korea, China, USSR, Cambodia, Vietnam. Socialists are masters of starving their population to death.

Even Lenin wasn't suicidal enough to move to communism straight away, after he won civil war, in 1921 NEP ( Hoвaя экoнoмичecкaя пoлитикa) was accepted which freed markets substantially. After this, Soviet economy boomed (certain Marxian economists celebrate 1921-1928 as a proof communism works while in reality this was again, free markets at work).
In 1928 Stalin discontinued NEP and moved to collectivization. One of biggest famines in the history of the world was the result.

>Even Lenin wasn't suicidal enough to move to communism straight away, after he won civil war, in 1921 NEP ( Hoвaя экoнoмичecкaя пoлитикa) was accepted which freed markets substantially. After this, Soviet economy boomed (certain Marxian economists celebrate 1921-1928 as a proof communism works while in reality this was again, free markets at work).
Nope. Lenin did that because according to the communist theory of stages you'd have to go through a short period of capitalism before socialism. In that sense, capitalism isn't exactly antithetical to socialism. It's actually preferred from older modes of production. But socialism and communism are "at the end of the line".