Holla Forums BTFO by right-wing intellectual

aei.org/publication/why-socialism-always-fails/





How will we ever recover from such strong arguments?

These people always let me down with their critiques. It's always 100 percent of the time "socialism is when the government does stuff" and "capitalism means freedumbs" This guy is no exception and has added nothing new.

I like how these people act like after the fall of the USSR the world somehow became amazing

To be fair, Czechs make extremely good whores. So to western capitalists, it probably seemed incredible.

This shit is what made me realize that not only are economists not as smart as hey think they are, but they constantly claim authority over fields they are not qualified to talk about.
Modern economics is the study of the behavior of markets, it is a soft science which means that while it is a legitmate area to study, it's conclusions are not nearly as rigid as say mathematics.
Mainstream economists are also too stupid to realize that their work only implies that markets are better than planning, not that calitalism is good, and no, markets =/= capitalism.

It's funny, because a lot of the post-socialist Eastern bloc countries were replaced with economies built on Ponzi schemes. Albania, for instance.

literally the best doctors in the world come from Cuba.

Yeah but if you wanted to make a critique of socialism/communism you would analyse it as it existed as it was a failure.
Just like leftists critique capitalism as it exists, because it fucking sucks.

Really, the failure of central planning has nothing to do with incentives and more to do with the inability to factor in all the information in an economy and properly calculate and allocate resources.

Didn't Cuba throw gays into prison, though?

Cuba wins where it actually matters.
Healthcare and Education.

Especially during AIDS hysteria, though they backed out when they realized the nature of HIV and its methods of infection. Castro said allowing panic to take over instead of waiting was one of his biggest regrets IIRC.

...

yes because no one else in the world did at that time.

I see you pol

t. Hayek

That's a lot of nothing

...

...

Given the recent resurgence of capitalism, especially as it is now being embraced by young Americans, I thought it might be a good time to re-visit my 1995 essay to review why capitalism: a) failed in the 20th century, b) is failing in the 21st century (e.g. Africa, South America, Middle East, USA), and c) will always fail. And that’s because it’s a flawed system based on completely faulty principles that aren’t consistent with human behavior and can’t nurture the human spirit.
Here’s are some excerpts of my 1995 essay “Why Capitalism Failed”:
Capitalism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal under rule of law.
In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, capitalism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of capitalist mode of production emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives privatisation its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, capitalism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.
A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, enterpreneurism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Capitalism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of capitalism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores worker incentives.
In a communist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Labor and use value, the communal system of accounting, and worker property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Communism is based on the theory that incentives matter!
Under capitalism, wage incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A stock-market regulated economy without worker-set prices or profits, where property is owned by the state sanctioned enterpreneurs, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, capitalism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives (worker rights and salary) don’t matter!


Basically the entire article is full of nothing.

Basically, this copypasta doesn't work because capitalism hasn't failed yet.

There's no "capitalist" society that reverts to feudalism, but there are "socialist" societies that reverted to capitalism.

usa is a failed state

Except the ones that did during the latter years of feudalism.

Well, the USA is still standing, where is China, where is USSR, where is Yugoslavia?

Like, England and France?

England becomes a constitutional monarchy where the queen is a face figure, while France has been capitalist ever since Napoleon, Napoleon basically merged feudalism with capitalism.

where indeed

Hello darkness my old friend.

China is an example of "socialist" society reverting to capitalism, or rather ultra capitalism actually.

there was no such "reversion". capitalist industrialization/development was even acknowledged early on.

Hence the "socialist".

To this date, there's never a socialist society, and even the short-lived left anarchist society reverts back to capitalism.

It isn't "standing." It's following a decaying trajectory that is sending it hurtling towards disaster.

Castro himself took the blame upon himself, and called it an injustice he wished he could take back.

Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, France, etc faded in and out of feudalism and straddled the line for much of the 19th century. Not to mention the constant flux of merchant republics like the Hanseatic League, Dutch Republic, Italian city states, etc.

I wonder if the future will remember this professional intellectual class, this just-add-water intelligentsia, as the modern version of powdered-white-wig effette aristocrats fawning over their kings.