Why do "anarcho" capitalists defend Pinoshit so much? I thought they were libertarians

Why do "anarcho" capitalists defend Pinoshit so much? I thought they were libertarians.

Other urls found in this thread:


Because deep down they know anarcho-capitalism is pure idealism and Capitalism sooner or later requires the physical removal of undesirables via the state

Everyone on the right today can be amounted in to a quality of severe insecurity and worship of gender and sex in the controversial due to lack of a solid family unit, lack of a father figure, lack of a mother figure, something that made them isolated and alone that it comes off normal.

It's hard to tell if the internet caused this, because truly these things in 20th century history were regular. And they're so easy to fool.

It's a systemic problem of encouraging kids to get into politics and lack of solid foundation which leads to over compensation and worship of father figures

Because they're not anarchist or libertarians. Pure unregulated and free businesses will replace the state. Of course they'll like Pinochet

Gotta admit though, he had a cool looking uniform.

They are closet Fascists. They value their economic freedom over freedom of others.

The ironic thing is that what they call economic "freedom" is really nothing more than the "freedom" to enslave. They have a warped concept of liberty.

Same reason leftists worship people like Mao who let China become a fifth-tier shithole untile Deng dropped the communism socialist meme and embraced capitalism.

Which consequently let to greater prosperity and wealth of the country with its people becoming much less poorer as a result.

But Chile didn't get rich under Pinochet.

They praise capitalism for taking people out of poverty then say every state isn't real capitalism. South Korea and Japan become successful not because muh free market but becuz of state regulation of capitalism ie not real capitalism.

So what you're saying is that when China was state capitalist workers slaved away in rice fields, but when China became "free market" capitalist those workers can slave away in sweatshops instead?

WOW! Praise be to the glorious invisible hand!

oh shit I still had my shitposting flag on

The only reason they like him is because he threw Commies out of helicopters.

They think he saved Chile from these evil commies even though he make Chile worse.

you should've kept it

I would kind of see it like how I secretly like Stalin whilst still hating him. I know that it's authoritarian, but I love the idea of the bourgeoisie being sent to gulags even though I oppose it.

No idea, but liberal like Sargon seems to like him to.

I don't like Mao but Chinese life expectancy increased greatly under him

I'm pretty sure it's ironic with Sargon, he's basically a social liberal who wants welfare and single payer healthcare and stuff

This is a stupid argument to have.
It was the Cold War, killing for politics was the norm, I doubt even Anarchists on Holla Forums would would chastise Castro or the Sandinistas for killing capitalist saboteurs and terrorists, so why would we berate the opposition for doing the same?
Sure, South American dictators some times abused their power and went after academics and regular Social Democrats, but while that is reprehensible it doesn't delegitimise their goals, just like the killing of a few priests and clergymen doesn't delegitimise the Spanish Republican cause.
His economic policies should be criticized, the US's support for his authoritarian regime should be criticized, and the collaboration that the Chilean ruling class had in the overthrow of Chilean Democracy should be criticized, and the validity of Capitalism in respite of the violence it requires to sustain itself should be heavily criticized but attacking violence for the sake of violence is just pure Liberal Pacifism.
The Right-Libertarian argument for defending him is that the defense of the citizen's property against subversive leftist radical follows from the state's function to protect the citizen's natural rights. Just like the army is justified against foreign aggression is it justified against internal aggression (that was also foreign funded)


For a long time they didn't.

Naomi Klein's book and a rising awareness of Chicago boy shenanigans there. Made it so the few that did support freidmanite consequalist anarchism had to embrace him or reject him.

On le chans helicopter rides became a meme which got unironic/ironic defense of him as a leader going.



Deng saved China. Communism is an utter failure.

what are those numbers?

I never claimed otherwise, I'm very sympathetic to Deng and I wish his model was followed elsewhere around the world.
You said Mao's China was a "fifth-tier shithole" and I showed that the data doesn't corroborate that propaganda.

nominal GDP


Most of the data Holla Forums uses is cooked or manipulated. mine comes from the IMF.

Wait is this nigger really using motherfucking GDP as a proxy for the health and development level of a planned economy?

Holla Forums wouldn't know a good faith argument if it put on blackface and fucked their wives

And I'm not the poster who said it was a "fifth-tier" shithole.

Anyways you can see the same thing happen in Vietnam when they abandoned socialism in the late 80s, and began to allow private businesses to exist.

The closest you can get to socialism without the economy and people being poor as fuck is social democracy, which still operates within a capitalistic framework.

In order to have a viable economy, private businesses and property need to exist.

Did you not read idiot? Absolute poverty rates declined as well. Deng's capitalist reforms made China's population way less poorer. The absolute poverty rate was 41% at the start of the reforms, and declined to 5% in 2001.


Deng "I blast jizzim over capitalism" Xiaoping saved China from the communist failure.

The only thing you can really argue for is that wealth inequality increased. People went from being equally poor as shit to unequally richer.

Workers Co-ops beg to differ.

Not to mention, life was pretty good in Anarchist Catalonia, even if it wasn't entirely perfect.



A moderate social Democrat was the next Stalin

I don't think any Marxist will deny Capitalism can facilitate a lot of growth. That isn't really the argument against Capitalism.

That operate within a capitalist society?

That lasted for three years before being stomped silly by Franco? You need a way better example. A pro-anarchist site is not a valid source dude. I want studies.

Mao was horribly incompetent, besides being way out in ideological left field. I don't support or defend him or his work. His absurdly large agricultural production quotas led his ministers, deathly afraid of denying or failing him, to order crops ripped up and densely replanted near the party offices he would visit, which caused the largest man-made famine in human history. Also that bit where he ordered the pests killed and basically destabilized the entire ecosystem, worsening the famine. He's a case-in-point of why leaders MUST be scientifically literate.
Deng was an improvement.

That doesn't change the fact that GDP is a useless metric for what you fancy using it for. If it's irrelevant to your argument you shouldn't include it just to stretch your post.

At least I'm not arguing dishonestly

We don't care about wealth inequality. Lurk moar
It's not about "how much" you have, but how you got it.

It wasn't, it was almost the size of France and more than doubled between 1965 and 1975 as the IMF data shows. Meanwhile under Deng between 1975 and 1985 and around 50% between 1985 and 1975 it grew only around 80%, nothing groundbreaking as you claim it was.

Poverty rates are defined by per capita income which isn't an accurate way to measure a planned economy.

There is nothing indicating that the growth that happened would not happen under the planned model. Mao was ousted by a Coup, there wasn't any paradigm shift.

Again, please see links with citations

Good. Because socialism was a tremendous failure in China. Capitalist reforms saved it.

Bullshit. It's what socialists bitch and moan about the most.

I don't see why it matters if Capitalism expands value. Isn't that the purpose of capital in capitalism - the self expansion of value?



Dude just accept the evidence.


Let me requote


The economy was in constant stagnation. It only took off rapidly when Deng liberalized it and implemented capitalist reforms. Had it not implemented the reforms, China would be fucking Venezuela today.


Again, same thing happened in Vietnam during the late 80s. When the government dropped socialism for capitalism. Their GDP per capita began to rapidly increase.

It truly activates my almonds.

How many times do I have to tell you that this is in no way contradictory to the Marxian opposition to Capitalism?

That's a lolberg term and it makes me seriously doubt the impartiality of that source.

That doesn't mean anything.
Chinese nominal GDP in US dollars grew MORE under Mao than it did in the first 20 years of Capitalist reforms according to IMF data, not some random author.
That doesn't make any fucking sense. China would be North Korea today. Venezuela never had a planned economy and is much more comparable as a commodity exporter with modern Russia than with China in any time period.

Yes, the eastern block fell. That still doesn't prove it was for economic causes since that's not what the data shows. I'd need to look at what the IMF has on Vietnam's GDP over the years.

Actually it is. According to DiaMat Socialism is by definition a better mode of production than Capitalism, muh fairer distribution is the Anarkid argument.


Yeah because it isn't prone to precariousness due to inner contractions, not because "muh growth". Socialism eliminates capital.

I linked you the PDF my dude.

Considering that workers co-ops are more productive, hypothetically they could out compete private companies.


Take your finger and try to place it where the Deng reforms started.

But for whom?!

fuck off.
This is exactly the shit I'm talking about.

Do we have to keep going around in circles? Everything is sourced and has citations.

We can go back and forth all day. The evidence is overwhelming that Deng's reforms catapulted China into the economic powerhouse it is today. Deng dragged the Marxists kicking and screaming into a prosperous era. The capitalist era.

Truly China was made great again.

If your definition of "socialist" includes as a key attribute "bitches about income inequality as a problem in its own right," and we disavow the people who do, you have to reconsider whether or not we actually are socialists according to your definition. And, moreover, whether or not your definition is actually good enough.

Capitalism is an excellent way to achieve the historically necessary task of building up the productive forces and industrializing. That's why the Mensheviks wanted a "two-stage" revolution, first to enthrone capital, and then establish socialism at some indefinite future point. The Bolshevik position to "bypass" local capitalist development this was based on two things: the inability of the tiny bourgeoisie to assert its political rule over the Tsarists or rivalries with other nations' capitalists, and the clear and present revolutionary significance of the local proletariat given by its relationship to international capital, not "socialism is just 'better' in every regard."
But yeah, it's still silly to reduce the emancipatory project to an issue of "fairer distribution." Capitalism can give that with reforms.

That isn't in conflict with anything in Marxian theory, Marx uses an accumulation of wages theory as opposed to the popular "Iron Law of Wages". My question to you:
- Pointing out a rise in real wages, decline in poverty etc does not tell us anything about how this expansion took place. Do you have statistics on that?
You are attempting to paint this as a moral gain for Capitalism, I am arguing that there is nothing moral about this. This is the natural course of the system, warts and all ;).

I was trying to make the point that it was procured at the expense of the workers.


You're right, if Deng left the economy alone, and continued the everlasting socialist failure by Mao, the exact same thing would have happened!

Thank fucking god ideology lost, and sanity won.

When did I imply "correlation is not causation"? I'm not arguing for the success of Mao's sparrow poaching business, I'm arguing against this ethical spin you're trying to pin on Capitalism doing what Marx said Capitalism did nearly 100 years beforehand.

Basically, I'm asking you to "explain how Capitalism worked in this situation". By "you get the whole thing warts and all", I mean you get the boom but also the bust. "This undeveloped agrarian nation's despotic planned economy didn't grow, fucking get reked socialist!" is not an argument that addresses anything laid out by Marx or subsequent theorist of political economy in the Classical tradition.

This is boring as fuck and I feel like bedding.

But let's see:

Hmmmmmm, really makes you think.

Dude you can't argue against all the overwhelming evidence. Kek.

Out of all economic theories, Capitalism has the least flaws. This is even why in utopias the socialists point to like Sweden end up having its companies 90% privately owned, 5% state-owned and only 5% being worker co-ops. Again, a capitalist economy through and through.

I don't care about theory and ideology kiddo. I care about empirical evidence when it comes to economics.

I can't really argue with that graph, you win.

I'll try looking for GDP per capita stats from the IMF on the same time period some other day.


Both Deng and whoever was ruling Vietnam got the idea from Singapore I think.

You should read Marx. As far as I'm concerned, we've had more or less consistent decennial crisis since 1842 :). How's that empirical evidence kiddo?

Wow what startling insight.

That's what I've been saying.

Dumb theory-less porkie. When will they learn?

of course, the Soviet Union under Stalin (until his death) was the second fastest growing country in terms of GDP per capita from 1928-1970 (only eclipsed by Japan who made use of heavy central planning and protectionism), perhaps Mao's strategy was just shit? On top of this, despite the GDP per capita growth of China under Mao being on par with that of India, we saw far larger gains in life expectancy in China under Mao than in India, suggesting that the poor were comparatively enjoying the benefits of that growth a lot more in China than in India

Mao's strategy was to cook steel in his backward while he plotted his revenge on the sparrows for killing his father.

A true Marxist.

That's not a wew. That's true, it doesn't imply causation. You need to delineate an actual causal mechanism. And since this is economics we're talking about and not the physical sciences, that pretty much means hinges on having a valid economic model that makes robust, correct predictions. But this and the consistent wrong predictions and increasingly desperate measures in policy-level macro challenge a lot of this worldview.
You don't really have the evidence you'd need to make this case tbh

We use theory in the technical sense to mean, as in science, "model with predictive capability." I mean, that's the crux of economics really. It's about scientifically understanding an aspect of the world. It's not about "ideology" meaning of some matrix of what we do and don't value, and how much. Theory is something necessarily built upon empirical evidence.

Fuck, I knew I forgot something in

Yeah that should say "backyard", but you got the point. Mao couldn't have run a country had his life depended on it.

Don't you know? Vulgar economist don't need theory. They're completely find being stuck up in Walrasian general equilibrium cuckoo land! Just look at the academics.

[vomits internally]


I kept trying to make a joke about how general equilibrium theory assumes perfect competition and small firm size to arrive at their supply/demand curve but I kept making typos and I have given up.

There are like 10 Maoists in the world. No one on the left worships Mao or takes said Maoists seriously.

High school was pretty fun tbh
I fived both ap exams because of my awesome teacher

those stats were proven to be bullshit by multiple researchers. the ussr exaggerated the fuck out of them

Khanin's recalculated statistics were estimated using a variant of the physical indicators method. They were based on the output data for a small number of sectors (e.g., electricity production and freight transport) which were used to generate estimates for mesoeconomic and macroeconomic data. These estimates were checked by using several variant values for the constituent data. Although crude, and difficult to replicate, this method may well have given a better picture of the economy than the official data.

Do I have to say anything else?

Pls no.

Wait till I get started!

it was replicated.


It also aligns with the CIA estimates more closely which was conducted independently.



articles.latimes.com/1990-04-24/news/mn-339_1_soviet-economy (here soviet officials near the collapse of the ussr say that that CIA actually overestimated the soviet economy)

So either the official statistics published by TsSU greatly exaggerated the growth for political purposes, or the CIA, Khanin or other researchers are lying.

whoops forgot image

I'm not so sure sometimes.

All they really propose is a 'reset' of states.

If states would really just disappear and give way to 'pure' capitalism, barbarism will follow, and the establishment of new states by those who gain power over enough people and property.

He is ironic, but irony slowly gives way to normalization. I bet if political dissenters really were assasinated in the near future by a system he is sympathetic to, at this point he'd just say "it is okay because in the long term this is good for the people "

Sargon went off the edge after brexit; he is all anti-establishment for the sake of it.

Because they're not anarchist, nor are they libertarian, or any other word they'll steal from the left next.

Because there is no such thing as right wing libertarianism.

pick one lefty pol

kill yourself

We need a new Stalin to purge vile fags like you who can't lurk to understand the differences between these two leaders.

Because he upheld private property.

what is the difference between ancap and tankie then, the spectrum is much more like a continuum line instead