Right-wing critiques of socialism

This is the problem with right wing economics in general. They use autistic fantasy hypotheticals to assert that their economic orthodoxy is correct and we'd all be better off doing whatever evil shit they want to do that runs counter to human decency.

have you ever coerced anyone of anything?

just reveal the tautology in their arguments. they're unscientific and they know it, they just hope no one catches on to their scam under all that logic acrobacies.

Can confirm. The Road to Serfdom literally reads like it was written by a teenager who's political education consists entirely of Molymeme videos. I couldn't make it through the first chapter which was loaded with strawmen.

Problem with socialists is that they keep their own ideology on the theoretical level during arguments while at the same time they criticize the practical flaws of other ideologies, usually free-market liberalism. On top of that the socialists usually don't even criticize liberalism but instead talk about capitalism. This way you get these arguments in which someone saying free market is good because reasons and then you have a socialists saying that in practice that's not how it functions and points out the flaws of free market. Then the liberal gives practical examples of the failures of socialist policies around the globe but to that the socialists say "that's not real socialism, real socialism has never been tried". So if a liberal argued like a socialist he would say "that's not how real free market works, real free market has never been tried" to all the socialist criticism of the free market.

So, if you really want to have quality criticism of socialism then try to keep the arguments fair. First ditch all the words that don't really mean anything like left/right wing. Then have arguments that are something like this:
- Socialism in theory vs Liberalism in theory
- Socialism in practice vs Liberalism in practice
Don't cross these two because that way you get those obnoxious arguments about "theoretical socialism that has never been tried vs practical flaws of a society that practices free-market liberalism".

If you want purely economic debate you can even have planned economy vs free market economy debate.
And if you really want to use the C-word then don't fall for the socialism vs capitalism meme but instead keep it fair and call it corporate capitalism vs state capitalism or public capital vs private capital or whatever.

Follow these instructions and you might one day gather some better critique of socialism if that's really what you want.

...

I'd add Stirner

Couldn't even get three points down without revealing your full retardation power level

Fuck off back to /a/utist. Not even worth a you.

why don't you go back?

It's literally impossible to just focus on a certain subject just in practice, because you will still need theory to define and analyze the system you are talking about, just like how in the end theory is in some way based on reality not just random stuff in your head.
Saying "something is not real socialism" is totally okay in my view if you can explain properly why is that thing not socialism and at the same time take apart the other person's theory.

how embarrassing

reddit fucking sucks.

FULLY AUTOMATED LUXURY COMMUNISM

jesus fucking christ do you even know what socialism is

bruh you did it
you did exactly what OP says cappies always fucking do

Survival is incentive - survival is in my self interest, you stupid fuck

Currently debating someone that claims socialism is "equality of outcome" and libertarianism is "equality of opportunity" and thus, socialism is bad. Tried explaining it to him but it isn't sinking in. Anyone have any resources I can look at to reword my argument?

We haven't seen your arguments, how would we know how to change them?

youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
money or coercion isn't nearly our most powerful motivator

but we do argue about socialism in practice… and a lot of it shows good results
really just lurk before posting.

The abject failure of every state attempting to organise along socialist lines does much, much more to critique socialism than anything some lolbertarian sperg could come up with

you have to define "failure" first. none of you are willing to do this.

Both of his definitions are wrong and retarded. He needs to fucking learn what socialism actually is. In a socialistic system, there are still going to be people who fuck up and do nothing with their lives and people who do great things.

If anything, socialism is the true definition of "equality of opportunity", because everyone has enough to eat, has a home, and isn't coerced into working long hours in shit jobs just to validate their own existence.

You can have "equality of opportunity" in any system that does not place strict divisions on people to uphold division of labor, or doesn't enforce stupidity by force or design. To give lolberts a little credit, they are generally against systems of force, but fail to make the connection that their right to property can only be upheld by force - literally, by telling someone in a supermarket filled with food that they can have none because they don't have any magical money slips, even if the supermarket isn't selling their food and much of it goes to waste. The food is there, the people are there, and there really is no good reason why the food needs to sit on the shelf when it can be put to use. And who knows, maybe the supermarket owner is a generous person at heart and wants to make sure his excess stock goes to use - but the rules of the market dictate that he has to sell at a price, and if he just gives away food then natural behavior dictates that everyone will just wait until the market owner gives away his stock. So you have a problem with the mechanism of markets in general, which the lolberts generally hold up as an ideal. By worshipping the market, you become a slave to it's whims. Maybe it's easy to ignore that if your life isn't so bad or better yet you're an owner and only reap the benefits, but coercion is built into the system.

That's the best I can do without knowing the particulars, anyway.

The collapse of the USSR and the transition of most avowedly socialist states to market economies doesn't count as failure?

you mean market economies that the US forced on them and was only met with recession and lower production.

Right, the socialist version of the NEETsoc "Nazi Germany was a great country that only failed because of Anglo-Zionist machinations" argument

I agree with Dostoyevsky on some points about alleviating suffering being misguided, but his criticisms are more directed towards 'utopian socialism'.

but… it DID fail because of anglo-zionists. you also forgot to mention communists.

Regardless it's a cop out argument, since your ideology argues that capitalist states are intrinsically opposed to anything remotely socialist, so capitalist states conspiring to oppose socialism isn't exactly out of left field.

Also how do socialists reconcile "fascism is capitalism's last defense" and the fact that capitalist states co-operated with an ostensibly socialist state to defeat Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, while looking the other way as the USSR occupied most of eastern Europe? That's some 64-dimensional-chess bullshit

the capitalist class is not a monolithic entity. British capitalists opposed fascism because they viewed it as a threat to their hegemony.

...

lol, you think the Anglos and Slavs just collaborated on the Nazi invasion? that's not how WWII worked. not to mention America and Britain recovered very quickly no thanks to libertarian free-market policy. if they hadn't they probably would end up on the side of right-wing populism just like Germany.

holy fucking mental gymnastics, how did you pull this "paraphrase" out of your ass?

Western Capitalists did their best to undermine the USSR war effort while allying with them strategically to get rid of what they thought was the bigger threat (remember that Russia historically was never as industrialized and didn't have the same history of competing with Britain for colonies that Germany did.)
posting a meme reaction face doesn't mean it's not true.

Even better is the fact that socialism as a poitical category is so diverse that no one criticism can be universally applied to every tendency.

That's not how any form of socialism works. Marx even said that people work longer, harder, and better than others deserve more.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution."

In the 50s both of these countries had really high taxes on the rich, a high degree of state ownership and a fuckton of regulations and organized labor was strong. Keynesian social democracy was thriving. Nothing could be further from libertarianism. Policy since the 70s has been privatization, tax cuts and deregulation.

The fuck are you even on about? FDR aligned with the USSR because he was stupid enough to believe Brother Stalin was interested in a Popular Front against the ebil fascists

Gonna need a [citation] on that

What shall we name this obsession with exchange and disregard for production that right-wingers have? Exchange fetishism?

They didn't start lend lease until the soviets started winning. They were hoping to play both sides against eachother.

It's not even that complicated. They're so completely indoctrinated that even their conceptions of "non-capitalist" alternatives only exist within the framework of capitalism with some of the dials turned. So socialism just ends up being when you turn up the "taxes" dial or make things "free-er" within the same market system. I can only imagine it betrays a lack of imagination if not intelligence, though to their credit people like Zizek do say that it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism for a reason.