All attempts at communism and socialism have failed throughout history

All failed, collapsed, or poor states. Kek.

Say what you will about communism, it was more effective than your favorite fascism

So people will go full communist/socialist, and realize it isn't viable in the long-term and implement liberal economic reforms down the road. As it has happened over and over again throughout history.

I'm not a fascist you fucking moron.

classical liberal is literally only a buzzword so look at you i guess

well who's defining it? you are and you're biased.
zapatistas and rojava aren't poor and the rest mostly only failed because of outside intervention. don't be a retarded homonigger.

It works better than Capitaism too actually

K E K.

Yugoslavia's market socialism under Tito is widely considered to be an economic miracle and Asian communism failed because it virtually abandoned Marxist thought in favor of bullshit like "Taoist dialectics"

No not really considering all the richest and prosperous countries in the world are capitalist.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Chipas is one of the POOREST states in Mexico.

Keynes was a classical liberal you fucking idiot.

Capitalism has been tried and proven to workm

All the richest and prosperous countries in the world are capitalist you moronic fuck. Sweden, Norway, and Finland operate within a capitalist economy. Switzerland, Hong Kong, and Singapore are classical liberal economies.

There has NEVER been a rich socialist country in history.

yes. it's a dialectical inevitability.

socialism and communism are designed for long-term viablity as opposed to capitalism which functions on infinite compound growth in an inescapably finite world.

Once again, ended up collapsing. And Yugoslavia under Tito was still poorer and had worse loving standards than other capitalist countries in Europe.

Also

I thought you guys were AGAINST the market? Make up your fucking minds.

The only reason you enjoy your liberal pleasantries within it so much are because of the fight of collectivists for a more fair future. They didn't get everything they wanted, but enough that your dumb shit entitled ass should thank your lucky starts its not the industrial revolution.

Capitalism is like any other system of organization, and it can and will become too chaotic to function "as it should", etc. when as it should is actually how it works best, collapse after collapse

...

This isn't Holla Forums. There are other opinions besides what sounds the funniest on screen. So not an echo chamber

Mexican here. Chiapas was poor as fuck even before the Zapatistas. The natives rose up because they were fucking being abused by the government and corporations. Now the government is passing neoliberal policies making shit worse. The EZLN doesn't control all of Chiapas you dipshit

If they didn't exploit other countries, they would be Africa level poor.

Which is partially why the Zaps exist. The Mexican government is one of the most corrupt on the planet.

Nope. Hong Kong, Singapore, and Switzerland are some of the richest and most developed countries in the world.

Reminder that Sweden is even privatizing government services.

economist.com/news/business/21578020-sweden-leading-world-allowing-private-companies-run-public-institutions-hospital

The poorest countries are also capitalist.

no, keynes was a keynesian. he created new economic theory with which he reformed classical liberal capitalism entirely. classical liberals include locke, say and malthus.

you quite literally don't even understand what "master" (kek) race you supposedly belong to.

until it enters crisis and needs to be band-aided like the eternal cancer patient it is.

this proves only that western europe, through a much more extended period of capitalist longevity managed to be better off as it had more time to accumulate capital. this is ignoring all the wealth it amassed over countless centuries of colonialism and imperialism, and the fact that some colonies in yugoslavia's times were still under the rule said european countries.

furthermore, it only proves that yuo will always desperately try to grasp another straw when looking to see if something "works". yugoslavia's quality of life was a billion times better than when the countries it consisted of previously had a capitalist economy. some weren't even industrialized and relied on agrarianism to barely get by, when they weren't totally squashed by war.

we are principally against capitalism. markets are not exclusive to capitalism.

What does that term even mean anymore?

Centrist?

Neo-liberal?

Fiscally conservative meme?

Classical liberalism is taught in econ classes and written about history books, it's not relevant anymore.

tiny non-economies based on finance
What nazi gold?

After succeeding, still counts, faggot.
And yet it recessed when socialism was abandoned because the IMF preyed on it without mercy. Again, the rich countries exploit the poor ones.

For every fabulously wealthy classical liberal state, there are two with even less market restrictions. When lolberts realize this, they usually go stormfag.

It's almost as if socialism isn't a monolithic entity.

and they are not classical liberal capitalist. no economy that still exists to today is. hong kong is neoliberal (economically neoclassical, socially liberal), singapore is deng's and yew's pioneered "capitalism with chinese characteristics" AKA authoritarian capitalism and switzerland is still a semi-keynesian economy that is becoming more and more neoliberal as keynesian also fails (and failed elsewhere) to combat contradictions of capitalism.

he quite literally wasn't, you mongoloid.

Nations like Albania, Montenegro and Romania are in the top quarter of nations by economic freedom, yet they remain shitholes. The richest nations are also heavily dependent on resources from non-lolbert capitalist nations–doesn't seem so free to me.

EVERY government in the world has engaged in some form of exploitation. Get the fuck over yourself.

Chiapas is poor as fucking shit, has sub-par loving standards compared to other Mexican states, and the Zaps have not improved economic conditions.

harvardkennedyschoolreview.com/zapatista-development-local-empowerment-and-the-curse-of-top-down-economics-in-chiapas-mexico/

I'm in fucking tears.

If anything Vietnam and China show that strong state intervention is necessary to get the best results from capitalism

You fucking yank. You're wrong about Chiapas.
It was poor as fucking waaaaay before the Zapatistas rose. You get over yourself.

Your phrasing implies you see it as a negative, but in such a way it's an inevitable positive. The same ideas people fight for now are perhaps the only reason you still have time for a weekend. If your nightmare is working all day with no end in sight under someone powerful and yet at the same time value unristricted capital you haven't been paying attention to history whatsoever

Not an argument.

Your article also clearly states that the government is the source of almost every problem they face.

and LOZZY AIR states do it on an unprecedented level, this is like comparing columbine to the armenian genocide

Wow, we sure have been getting a lot of trolls here lately, I wonder what happened recently to threaten them enough to come here and act tough.

Wrong.

Keynes referred to himself as a classical liberal numerous times.

books.google.com/books?id=f5iBAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=keynes referred to himself as a classical liberal&source=bl&ots=jEWiXY52aW&sig=uPWJeA6MvEvLVrhnZGDkojq-qMY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1i5yR7rfOAhVYz2MKHSo9Bj8Q6AEIHTAH#v=onepage&q=keynes referred to himself as a classical liberal&f=false

Tito's country only had living conditions improve AFTER he implemented economic liberal reforms.

shsu.edu/~his_ncp/YugoPM.html

You are making the claim that living conditions decreased once Tito's government collapsed. Provide a citation backing this up or fuck off. Tito still ended up collapsing, again.

Meanwhile I can provide a study showing how ex-ussr countries had loving conditions improve after the collapse of the communist regime.

scholar.harvard.edu/shleifer/publications/normal-countries-east-25-years-after-communism

Just because you think it, doesn't mean it's there

So it still ended up collpasing. And again, Tito only saw success in his government after he implemented liberal economic reforms
Otherwise his country would be as fucked up as the socialist states.

You are truly fucking retarded.

Complete bullshit. Hong Kong, Singapore and Switzerland are three of the freest economies in the world. The have free-market oriented economies even though their governments are quite autortarian socially.

Which came first dipshit. The chicken or the egg? Many of those same countries are ex-socialist states like Somalia which actually saw living conditions IMPROVE after the socialist regime.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147596707000741

Yes my friend, fucking FULL BLOWN ANARCHY PROVIDES BETTER LIVING CONDITIONS THAN SOCIALISM.

Socialism is THAT fucking shitty.

Nope. He referred to himself as a classical liberal all his life. You do realize that Keynesian policies are perfectly compatible with clasdical loberalism? When a recession jappens, the government spends money. After the recession is over they go back to their previous policies. This happened multiple times in history.

Google it retard.

Provide a citation or fuck off. Zaps haven't done shit to significantly increase living standards in Chiapas.

They were already poor. That's the point. The natives here were poor as fuck ever since colonization. Read for yourself.

Not the trend dipshit.

Do me a favor. Look at this heritage.org/index/ranking and compare it with HDI, GDP per capita and life expectancy. You will find a strong correalation.

Please…

I was implying his personal beliefs on what he was hardly mattered in the long run and are largely irrelevant

For someone claiming to be the master race you sure are getting more assravaged every post.

And the Zaps haven't done shit to improve it. So much for your policies working, eh?

Yeah, they are now essentially state capitalists. So capitalism works.

See this is why nobody can take you retards seriously.

Your ideology is pure idealism. Exploitation will always exist as long as we exist. You bitching about it isn't going to change a thing. Every time you tried to change this you either failed, collapsed or ended up implementing economic liberal reforms to improve your living standards a la China and Vietnam.

Well, defined failed?

So you have two dominate super powers and two petty ok smaller countries.

And as the meme people keep posting demonstrates, many of the other socialist would have been fine if not for overwhelming interference

So Somalia isn't anarchy now? What about all the ancrap memes about it?

Make up your mind.

Who's the collective we here. Are you implying everyone who dislikes communist theory is educated on the subject in the slightest?

I mean, first of all that would require you would, all you've been doing is bitching about how Keynes was a classical liberal like it actually matters

Did not collapse, is not poor, or did not have to liberalize the economy to improve living standards and the economy itself.

China and Vietnam are state capitalists. Once they implemented those capitalist reforms they became richer and and saw living conditions improve.

Well anti-state capitalists aren't anarchists to begin with.

Read a fucking book. I at least respect you for calling yourself a liberal instead of some made-up ahistorical shit like "libertarian" (propertarian).

also, I'm not the only user on this board.

he didn't. it shows that you didn't read the text you linked here either and that all you did was ctrl + f the page because nowhere does it support your claim.

tito reformed the economy two years before its collapse. yugoslavia's economy had before first been centrally planned socialist, then market socialist. do you even do research as basic as reading history books or consulting wikipedia articles before making claims or do you just mindlessly post links to stuff you don't read?

yes, capitalism innately requires a free market. this is not the defining feature or classical liberal capitalism, but a feature of all capitalism. an example of classical liberal capitalist features of the early 20th century (when it still existed) would be the complete lack of state regulation on speculatory trade and state-mandated standards of quality on commodities.

you are not making your case any better here. in first seeking to find instances of socialism working in and of itself, you are now comparing the efficiency of capitalism under one set of material conditions to another. try this: is venezuela better off, or columbia? cuba or haiti?

finally, i'd like to ask you how you explain the fact that soviet russia managed to become the second largest economy with contention for world hegemony after only 10 years of centrally planned socialism when it had prior to that been an agrarian backwater with next to no industry.

the next part where you compare anarchy to socialism is so ironic i can't even really give you a serious answer, sorry.

i already addressed your final pararaph above.

Somalia is a horizontally structured society free from hierarchy?

...

oops, didn't mean to greentext that, sorry.

Please by all means google it.

oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198292364.001.0001/acprof-9780198292364-chapter-2?rskey=8aii2s&result=5

Nope. Classical liberalism is defined by low regulations on the econony. Not the complete absence of it.

Nope. The market reforms began in the 1950s. Read my link.

Once again, this is a chicken and the egg question. Which came first? The poverty or capitalism?

Explain how economic conditions and living standards improved in those countries AFTER the ussr.

Again

scholar.harvard.edu/shleifer/publications/normal-countries-east-25-years-after-communism

Stay rekt

And once again. Still waiting on that link proving that serbia, croatia, bosnia, etc are now worse off than they were under Tito.

i've done even better; i've read books on it, including the entire section of that bool you linked. neither support your claim. find me a cogent source that identifies keynesianism as identical to or no different from classical liberalism and then we'll talk.

correct; tito implemented market socialism in yugoslavia then. once again, markets are not a feature exclusive to (classical liberal or otherwise) capitalism. in fact, markets as a means of distribution have existed since slaveholder and feudal society times.

you also appear to be unaware of the late reforms that were liberal in yugoslavia that occurred two years before its collapse which split the nation back into separate nations.

that's not what chicken and egg means and we are not just arguing poverty but efficiency in general. if you insist, cuba and venezuela were incredibly poor and thus inefficient prior to being taken over by marxist-leninists and market socialists respectively, after which their quality of life skyrocketed like never before despite numerous attempted coups at their livelihoods. the same applies to the ussr.

this is not what i, nor any socialist is contending. marx himself famously credited capitalism for being an incredibly productive economic system. the reason we oppose capitalism is because of its innate contradictions that systemically produces crises and because it is founded on financial inequality and exploitation, as my previous pic demonstrates. this is why for us, X (sustainability, equality of opportunity) is important while for you Y (growth for the sake of growth, new commodities for the sake of new commodities) is in determining efficiency. this is also why we do not shy away from critiquing our movement's history, its shortcomings, tragedies, etc.; because findint something that does work and can remain sustainable is tantamount to our cause, as opposed to excusing all shortcomings of capitalism and instead blaming them on individual actors.

you won't get one from me, because 1) i never implied such a thing, 2) it is not the case and can as such not be proven right and 3) what i, as an anti-capitalist, deem important in assessing success is different to what you find important.

while i can not claim that economic growth was as important in yugoslavia as it is in the nations that succeeded it, i can give you several polls, studies and reviews that would suggest that people were happier and better off under market socialism (e.g.: balkaninsight.com/en/article/for-simon-poll-serbians-unsure-who-runs-their-country) than they are now under neoliberal capitalism, as they had full job security, no wage labor, democratic control over their workplace, etc., which are things they do not have now.

oh, forgot to address a point
incorrect. for example, the first state regulation ministries and agencies like the FA (now CMA) as well as national economic practices like deficit spending and money supply changing did not exist or happen pre-keynesian reforms of capitalism. in their place was either nothing or purely private authority on such matters, which needless to say could not and did not guarantee financial stability which inevitably led towards keynesian reform theory, which was explicitly about curbing private freedom and putting regulatory power in the hands of the state and by extension the side of labour.

i post this reply with delay as my connection dropped, but see that you have also yet to reply. i am still here and still eager to see you tout keynes and keynesianism as classically liberal, however.

I argued that Keynes identified himself as a classical liberal. Furthermore Keynesian policies are not inherently incompatible with a classical liberal economy.

Considering that Keynesian policies are mainly used in recessions, what would happen is that government spending dradtically increases during this time, and once the recession is over you go back to more economically liberal policies. Rinse and repeat.

Discounting the latter country because it's in a fucking laughable state now thanks to socialist policies. You have Cuba.

Now for every country you can give me where quality of life and economy improved, I can give you even more where economic liberalisation has done the same thing.

Keep in mind Cuba is starting to head down the same path as China.

world.time.com/2013/07/24/as-communist-cuba-slowly-reforms-capitalism-takes-hold-of-its-real-estate-market/

Donyou see why this happens?Again your policies are not sustainable or effective in the long-term. Economic liberal policies almost always happen down the road in communist/socialist countries.

We shall see what the effects of these reforms have on Cuba. But I am going to make an educated guess and assume that living standards and economic improvements as a result.

But you ideology ISN'T sustainable. That is the point. Far more socialist and communist governments have collapsed than capitalist ones. Many of the socialist or communist countries have to reform the economy and liberalize it to a degree where the economy can start to flourish rather than be stagnant and poor. You've seen this in China, Vietnam and now Cuba. It's always the same pattern.

the the inexorable drive of the capitalist MOP deformed social democracy from representing FDR into to the policies HRC.

If anything, history has proven that the cancer must be pulled out from the root.

So not an actual study?

Did you read mine. Citizens in ex-ussr countries were polled and they claimed that life was better under the ussr than now.

But when researchers examined objective measures (gdp per capita, literacy rates, poverty rates, life expectancy, etc) the OPPOSITE result was found. Finding that these metrics all improved in the years and decades after communism in those countries.

books.google.com/books?id=LXPrFpIioL0C&pg=PA208&lpg=PA208&dq=classical liberalism minimal regulation&source=bl&ots=INCqz5jOo4&sig=gm8mUpj1lGm2wPRvWkiqKwrE1kM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwinnaDdibjOAhUBT2MKHSEiBuI4ChDoAQgRMAI#v=onepage&q=classical liberalism minimal regulation&f=false

This is what classical liberalism is. Adam Smith didn't argue that the government shouldn't regulate the economy at all, but that regulations should be quite small in nature while having free trade heavily free-market economies.

You are thinking of anarcho-capitalism which advocates no government regulation of the economy.

Again, Keynes referred to himself as a liberal.

If you cant trade with international markets then of course you are going to be poor.

Gee I wonder. Maybe its because the other capitalist countries didn't have trade embargos

If you actually googled it would discover the actual differences between the two systems.

What

The fall of the USSR took Russia back ten years and it has only recently gotten back to late 80s levels.

It's not even growing any faster than it had been.

...

...

...

...

which you still have yet to prove. at least you didn't tell me to find proof in your stead this time.

they are, as keynesian economic policy replaced classical liberal policy as the latter proved fundamentally incapable of providing sustainability and a way out of the crisis it produced in itself.

the biggest recession in the history of capitalism*.

except what we saw after the end of keynesianism in the late '70s was not the same classical liberal laissez-faire capitalism, but in fact the process of nationalizing key resource industries along with the introduction of massive new systems of acquiring credit. this is known as neoliberalism as it combines neoclassical economic practice with socially liberal doctrine. the architects of this late capitalism were the likes of friedman, who was a self-avowed and pioneering neoclassical.

the market socialist venezuela is in crisis because it was highly dependent on oil and mineral exportation which it distributes on the international market, the price of which (especially oil) has been plummeting for years now. add to this economic sanctions by the IMF and you have two crushing factors that are majority responsible for venezuela's current slump, not the socialist relation of production. you can, however, as even pro-venezuelans say, assess that venezuela has insufficiently diversified its economic focus from oil and minerals to other fields. i must once again remind you that despite all of this, venezuela is a better place to live in than columbia.

great. i don't doubt this.

despite the fact that cuba is a socialist command economy and china a capitalist market economy, yes: i know. what of it? yet another reminded that cuba is still better off than haiti.

material conditions, non-diverse economies dealing with fluctuating prices and not to forget active embargos and sanctions imposed on by those in charge of internatiomal non-liberal financial institutions like the IMF and world bank? yes.

the rest of your post is thereby answered.
(1/2)

that was a poll yes. a poll, like pic related, asks people to answer, to their own content, a question about certain matters. unless you're suggesting 80% of serbians would actively lie or would experience some 20-year long stockholm syndrome about the supposed horrors of market socialism, then be my guest.

here's (pdf related) a comprehensive study on documented reviews of satisfaction under workplace democracy including yugoslavian market socialism which is extensively sourced, if you'd like.

it wasn't, as displayed by the absence of financial agencies, money manipulation and deficit spending pre-keynesian reforms of it.

the fact that you cite adam smith at least shows you know how old, oudated and unpracticed classical liberal policy on capitalism is, even if only low-key.

listen, this is getting kind of boring and it's quite late here right now (almost 3 am) and i have to get the surplus value of my labor extracted from me again tomorrow morning, so i suggest you use my long absence and thus lack of pressure on you to form an immediate reply as time to reread some definitions, reinspect history and most importanly finally pick a point of contention for our discussion instead of changing from one to the other all the time.

catch you tomorrow (i hope). lates.
(2/2)

No. Because of terrible policies. It happened to non-embargoed countries as well.

Keynes called himself a liberal.

mises.org/library/was-keynes-liberal

I never said Keynesian policies are economic liberalism, only that he referred to himself as one.

See above.

Neoliberalism IS modern day economic classical liberalism.

What you seem to fail to grasp that classical liberal economies CAN have the government intervene during time of crises and increase spending to get out of the recession. Once they are out they can go back to adopting free-market economic policies again. What is unsustainable is long-term Keynesian policies. Nazi Germany is an example as while massive government spending got them out of the recession, further spending was becoming increasingly unstable and the only solution was to adopt free-market policies again or go to war. Hjalmar Schact laid his out perfectly and Hitler knew.

So you concede the argument that living conditions and economic prosperity increases in the vast majority of communist/socialist countries after economic liberalisation reforms? Good to know.

So was China at one point then they began implementing economic liberal reforms.

Npw Cuba is doing the same because it realizes that their economy does not provide prosperity and enough GDP growth.

So what about all the far more countries that saw economies improve after economic liberalization?

And that your policies are not sustainable in the long-term. It does not make your citizens rich, have living standards equal to other rich countries, or maintain an adequate increase in gdp over time. So the inevetiable economic liberal reforms happening.

And I'm saying that when looking at objective measures the result is the case.

See. You could not provide any study looking at objective measures like gdp per capita, poverty rates, etc to support your point.

Let me quote my study again.

postcommunist reform influences broader debates on global politics. Along with dire
interpretations of the 2008 world financial crisis, it has caused some to see authoritarian
state capitalism as the wave of the future. China is cast as a vibrant alternative to the
dysfunctions of liberal democracy.

life has improved dramatically across the former Eastern Bloc. Since the start of
transition, the postcommunist countries have grown rapidly. Their citizens live richer,
longer, and happier lives. In most regards they look today just like other countries at
similar levels of economic development.2 They have become normal countries—and in
some ways “better than normal.”

So your fucking poll is useless. It's like the poll showing how more Americans believe crime is increase when it is actually decreasing.

False as shit. The economy has never been completely absent of regulations and taxes, it's just that they were lower. You are making the opposite contention so please provide some evidence.

And the study you linked is useless. I don't care about fucking surveys. I want objective measures.

opposite result*

So why does that matter when its clearly not true? Most of what we call "Keynes" polices we're implemented in the 30's

What does rich mean in this context? How are you supposed to get rich when all the world is hostile to your economy?

I don't why you are so fucking hung up about this.

Keynes callied himself a liberal all his life. he supported the liberal party of the UK. One of their tenants was classical liberalism.

Now yes, certain keynesian policies are incompatible with an absolute free market economy, but the government intervening in times of economic crises is not inherently incompatible with economic liberalism. And I have never argued for an absolute free-market economy. An example: Hong Kong had more government intervention economically when the southeast crisis of 97 happened. After the stabilization they went back to classical liberalism economy. Hong Kong had the government spend drastic amounts of money during 1997 southeast Asian crisis, buy up private stocks, and then once the recession is done. Sell them to the private sector again. The countries worst hit by the crisis btw were Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea. None of which are classical liberal economies.

This is where Keynesian economies excel the most. Recessions sometimes happen in capitalist economies, nothing is perfect. When that happens, think of Keynesianism as the crutch and medicine during a few years of illness.

What Keynesian policies fail at is long-term usage. Keynes said so himself after the bust, the government HAS to cut back spending and revert to more freer policies. When government spending continues to increase despite no recession is when debt begins to heavily accumlate and you begin to have serious issues unless you cut back spending and go back to the more economic liberal approach. Once again Hjalmar Schact and the Nazi German economy.

However even in full-blown drawn-out recession over decades, Keyenesian policies are not aways a silver bullet. Japan has tried multiple stimulus packages as well as increased spending mulitiple times only for they economy to be continously stagnated as fuck. And now their debt is one of the highest in the world.

Put simply Abenomics is one of the biggest failures of Keynesianism in modern history.

And I'm not shitting on Keynes theories complety, no. I absolutely have no problem with the government increasing spending and stmulus packages during a recession. Once it's over it needs to go back to classical liberal policies. I go back to my previous examples: Hong Kong pulled this off perfectly during the 97 crisis. Increased spending, bought stocks from private investors and largely escaped unscathed. While SK, Indonesia and Malayasia were the most harmed and none of them were classical liberal economies.

Back to Japan; I know not what the deal is with Abe and his policies being retarded. I do know that if the government went full socialism or communism right now it would be a fucking disaster and cause ruin.

Let me also remind you that Keynes despised marxism and socialism, and talked and talked and blew the shit out of Marx multiple times.
Furtherrmore

There you fucking have it.
pragcap.com/myths-keynesian-economics/

You clinging onto Keynes as you think it disproves classical liberalism is hilarious and sad. Nowhere is it stated classical liberalist economies means completely government absence of regulations on the economy. It's just allowing some degree of government intervention, small regulations and with the flexibility for greater intervention to increase spending during times of crisises.
Keynes supported the liberal party all of his life. One of its tenants is classical liberalism.

So yes, I admit that capitalism has flaws even brand of capitalism of which I follow. But I always accept the fact that capitialism will always be a superior economic system than communism or socialism. So I advise you to change your flag to a socdem one even though it operates within a capitalist framework, because leninism is a failed ideology.

Banter aside, good night friend but I am going to take a 0.5mg of clonazolam (which is very potent like 10x more than diazepam which is one of the strongest benzos, thus I have to dose it correctly or you can easily die) with a very small glass of wine. It won't kill me as the dosage is not nearly enough but I might be sleeping for a full day or two. Helps massively with the anxiety and insomnia.

back.

i'm not that guy but i must reply to this.

this [only embargoes being decisive] is not what anyone is positing. embargoes heavily hamper and amplify other already important problems that are entirely unrelated to one's relation or mode of production such as one's material conditions (entirely scarcity related), insufficient or late diversifications of the economy and finally international commodity exchange prices (which are in heavy part also influenced by embargo on deciding them as certain economic zones can decide how much a commodity by quantity is tarrifed or limited to import).

based on this reality alone and the second, historically and empirically recorded fact that the international bourgeoisie actively made, makes and will make efforts to subvert, hamper and ultimately destroy any territory that refuses to stay in the strong arm of global capital via either imperialism, embargo or the use of exclusive "legal" bodies like the IMF and world bank, we must already conclude that any analysis of the efficiency of any mode of production alternative to the capitalist mode of production must also take into consideration any possible active outside efforts at destabilizing it.

as we spoke of yugoslavia before and now also the IMF but also NATO, quite ironically, just look up what really ended up killing yugoslavia: michaelparenti.org/yugoslavia.html (fully sourced in the keynotes at the bottom, have fun).

any capitalist is a liberal. what keynes wasn't was a classical liberal, by virtue of the fact that he believed in the implementations of policies almost entirely antithetical to the classical liberal tradition. he was also a devouted skeptic of capitalism in its entirety unlike his notable classical liberal predecessors like malthus, say or smith who thought capitalism was pretty much perfect.

was this whole exchange just about what an individual identities? despite the fact that it is one's virtues and actualities that determine what someone is? do you consider xher a woman despite the fact that xher was born with a penis? are you some kind of crypto-postmodernist? i'm wondering if you're arguing in good faith here if you do not only change the goalposts, but play semantics for multiple replies.

i read it, and still nowhere does it assess keynes's work or his policy as classically liberal. in fact, the mises institute which was founded by "libertarian" classical liberal hans herman hoppe, is there very explicit in not only considering keynes not a classical liberal, but is quite vocal and explicit in calling him a fool in that very article, but in general. because in general, keynes is despised by libertarians and those trying to desperately revive classical liberalism under their wing because he was its first true opponent who managed to create the architecture for a new, reformed capitalism that, much to their dismay, managed to pull almost the entire world out of a decade-lasting economic depression. keynes did not believe in the universal benevolence of private interests, nor that private interests are even innately good. he in fact believed the opposite, as shown by a quote of him from his 1926 book "the end of laissez-faire".

it indeed has many similarities, specifically in core philosophies, but ultimately isn't. this is why it's called neoliberalism and not classical liberalism. it is also going to die very soon and necessarily going to be replaced by a more authoritarian captialism as even its once most fervent supporters (that even went as far as calling it "the end of history") as such like francis fukuyama are saying. it also goes without mention that us marxists already foresaw that capitalism must always reinvent and band-aid itself for it systematically produces crises that stem from its contradictions (youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0).

capitalism never unadopts the free market. it functions ON it (production of a commodity which then sold and distributed by a free exchange market). the difference between a very liberal and a very regulated economic policy lies in precisely what their names suggest, NOT in an abandonment of free market exchange. keynesianism did NOT put some temporary end to free market exchange, it merely regulated it and the private actors that take part in it.

i "concede" (it's more the reiteration of a fact that even marx stressed, really) that capitalism is indeed much more productive and expansive. what i do not concede to is that capitalism does so while truly benefitting the working class, either directly by depending on proper policy or indirectly via the fact that infinite compound growth in a finite world is impossible and will rapidly see life for the working class deteriorate as it enters crises. this goes without mentioning the HUGE imbalance of world population welfare that must exist for 1/5th of the world to be very relatively well off while the other 4/5ths aren't (once again an inherent feature of the design of capitalism: wealth inequality).

china did not merely reform; it reformed with explicit trade agreements and policies made with international capital pre-reform. mere reform would not have changed anything without first being allowed back on the world market, as prior to their reforms (which were explicitly made to allow china back on the world market) china was only allowed to engage in trade with even its most nearing markets very limitedly. still, it managed, with a centrally-planned economy, to obtain full literacy, food security, full education and even a space program. you are, either by your lack of historical knowledge or by unconsciously leaving out historicaly documented facts, only strengthening my position.

cuba went strong, outperformed nearing formally liberal capitalist economies (still does) and even has a better quality of life for its citizens than the average american, but even there the effects of international trade embargoes and hundreds of attempted coups and attacks on its sovereignty are indeed starting pay their toll. you can thank the strongarm of international capital for this, not socialism. actually, you have to, or you're either a mongoloid or not worth talking to in the face such empirical facts.

because they were allowed to trade on the terms of international capital? yeah, what about 'em?

if you're not convinced they do and can after reading the above, read the above again. alternatively, consider a higher dosage of your pills.

it isn't, though.

did you read the PDF i posted? did you even, without reading said PDF, consider our X/Y axiom of what "efficiency", "good" and "works" mean to us while looking at other statistics?

don't bother; i know you value Y while i don't.

also, upon closer inspection of your study it is directly revealed that it is mainly focused on statistics like compound growth, which i once again do not doubt capitalism is good at improving. there is also no doubt that a nation's economy improves when it is allowed to engage in exchange with nearby markets on close to its own terms, something that cannot be said for cuba at all or even largely yugoslavia back when it existed.

>the study is useless
>i don't care about surveys
the study i linked (uploaded as pdf, rather) is not a survey. did you even read it?
(2/x)

I fucking HATE liberals

Okay, I didn't read your wall of texts, but:

Capitalism destroys free market. Then it develops into a state capitalism (imperialism), which subsequently adopts planned economy all by itself. Simply because it is more efficient to do so.

literally what?

Fuck off CIA.
Try to do some actual fucking effort.

how is DPRK not socialist?

No worker control in any way. A class system of the leader and the rest, set by birth.

the workers control the means of production through the state. the leader was elected democratically. the parliament even has more than one party.

sure buddy

any prood he wasnt? there was an election, and the korean people elected kim jong un to be their leader.
if anything, the DPRK is more democratic than the US.

He was the only candidate.

I dont give a damn about the USA, they are equally undemocratic, north korea at least doesnt try to hide it.

and you dare post porkie memes smh

The DPRK isn't perfect and is therefore a totalitarian monarchy that's worse than capitalism.

t.CIA agent

How do I know you arent a porky agent.

...

...

this.

how do i know YOURE not a CIA agent doing COINTELPRO?

Oh yes, the self-proclaimed non-communist country

Well then unless you go there you can never know for sure if they are communist or not.

there have been accounts of numerous people who went to the DPRK and claiming that the elections were completely real and the people are nowhere near as brainwashed as western propaganda say.

>USSR gets coopted by Austrian school liberals (Chubais, Mao, Gaydar) who privatize (==steal) all the public property and hand it bunch of effective managers/oligarchs because 'state can't manage anything'. oligarchs dismantle everything and sell it and together with new state mafia start selling oil while population is being turned into lumpens without jobs
When you imbeciles will die off already.

And there is also plenty of people who don't. Again, unless YOU go there yourself, you can never know, and since the DPRK can't seem to manage even the basics of PR and media, we will have to go with the idea that maybe, just maybe, the DPRK devolved to shit and no longer holds communism as a goal.

How do you know China or South Korea exist if you haven't been there dur hur

there are plenty of people who think the earth is flat.
a lot of the people who say the DPRK is democratic are non-socialists, or even anti-socialists even.
meanwhile most slanders against the DPRK are forwarded by neocons and liberals.

Look mate you can get all pissed off and such, but that doesn't matter.

If North Korea is actually communist, us whining about it wont change anything. However, regardless of what it is "hurhur your strawman", the people think it is not communist, it is presented as not communist, it is not called communist. To our understanding, the collective conception of North Korea is that that of a totalitarian fascist state that doesnt call itself communist and doesnt call itself communist.

Defending your hypothetical "good dprk" makes no fucking sense if we are attacking the concept of the "bad evil dprk". The west will never attack the DPRK because it has nukes and seoul is right across the border.

As such, attacking the idea, the conception of the dprk, that is the state that is totalitarian and non-communist, is what we should do.

The same way we think that the USA is a police state hellhole while we could just be living in a giant conspiracy. The reality of what a country is does not matter if we are never going to attack it. The USA or the DPRK could be utopia on earth for all we know, but we are attacking the countries as they are presented to us, which are shit.

git gud.

Refusing to attack the lies spread about North Korea does lead people to support attacking it and actually does have an impact. Anti-communists spread lies about a country, lies that don't match objective reality.

Except the West tries to overthrow the North Korean government all the time. You know that sanctions are applied against the DPRK, right? Why do you think the U.S. military has troops in South Korea, just so they could fuck the local women and never attack the DPRK?

Literal idealism here, nice.

Basically that translates to we should give into lies about objective reality in North Korea because of spooky ideas in minds.

But we can't know if they are lies, you dense motherfucker.

Which they would do regardless of if it is communist or not, so its not relevant.

Maybe you should read up what idealism is mate

We don't know the objective reality, because neither of us have observed it. All we have is second hand accounts.

Democracy repeatedly failed throughout history until the material conditions in the late 18th century made them possible.

It's why the Confederated/United States was called "the Great Experiment," because literally every democracy up to that point reverted or was beholden to aristocracy in some form or another.

Read a fucking book.

Yeah we can, like how the DPRK isn't fascist. They don't have a gigantic private sector and don't promote fascist ideology. So we can know something by comparing things labeled fascist to things that are fascist in the past.

If the entire capitalist world hates it, that's a good indication it isn't capitalist, and it professes to be communist. So that's a hint.

Another good indication of idealism. "I don't see it therefore not real" and attacking mental projections are literally idealism. If you have to resort to basically denying that facts can exist and that "we could just be living in a giant conspiracy." and that our senses are so fallible we can't actually know anything, that's just sad.

...

Mondragon did bretty gud during the 2008 recession, tbh fam.

proof? They promote race purity and traditionalism.

Its only a good indication that its not neoliberal and listening to the USA
It does not.

Buddy, litterally the only sources of information we have about North Korea is propaganda from some country. The damn country doesn't give out any information itself. If it was socialist or communist, it should be shouting it off the roof, sending pictures of new advanced shit they build. Instead, all we get is kim jung un smiling as shitty 20th century machinery next to underfed-looking people.

Anyway, Im done trying to get some sense into you, you obviously don't use rationality to try and deduct the truth or use pragmatism when trying to propogate socialism.

Do they lie about NK? Of course they do. Does that mean NK is a socialist utopia. Fuck no.

For the economy they don't have gigantic corporations everywhere like China, for one. Strange that a fascist state, which historically had big private sectors and were backed by big business, is lacking a private sector. Maybe it isn't fascist or capitalist then lel.

Race purity myth is made up. They are traditional and promote "conservative" values for sex,etc. That isn't an indicator or disqualification of socialism, otherwise the U.S. would be the most socialist country ever.

Juche is a development of Marxist ideology, and it's a crappy revisionist form, but it 's in the socialist camp.

Except for the actual visitors to the DPRK, the North Koreans who go to work in China, and The Associated Press. Oops.

It does that with its nuclear weapons and the U.S. portrays that as aggression.

Cuba is a poor country too, and it's a socialist state. The USSR was poor and socialist. The NK economy has recovered from the famine so there's less "hungry people" than before, so there's that.

Good thing I never claimed that. The fact that North Korea's leaders were related to each other indicates a serious problem with democracy there, and the personality cult is revolting. Those criticisms are not on the capitalist ideology level of claiming that's somehow fascist or "totalitarian".

Due to an embargo by the west followed by IMF mandated dismantling of the socialist system. Their economy went to total shit when they started implementing capitalism. Following that ethnic tensions tore the country apart.

Market socialism and capitalism are different things, those "liberal reforms" were market socialist reforms, all enterprise was cooperative and the workers owned the means of production directly. This was backed up by heavy government spending, taxation and redistribution which made Yugoslavia just as prosperous as the West. A perfect example of this is how unlike the rest of the socialist countries in Europe, Yugoslavia had no emigration restrictions, and their population didn't pour across the iron curtain at the first opportunity. Yugoslavia also had far less poverty, homelessness and economic inequality than any capitalist state.

This Pajeet triggers me.

What about creating "incorrect" Socialism and taking over the world?

Ialready gave you countries without embargoes in socialist or communist countries that were still poor as shit. Move on.

Largely because of your shitty policies.

Embargoes are not the catalyst for your failed policies. The economic investment you engage in ends up being a disaster. You are unable to stay competitive and prosperous compared to your capitalist peers.

Want to know how I know you are retarded?

NOBODY CALLED HIMSELF CLASSICAL LIBERAL BACK THEN. You were simply called liberal.

It's when social liberalism itself liberal that there was a problem. Social liberalism supported heavy handed government intervention in the economy no matter what, with socially liberal policies.

Because of this a distinction had to be made hence old school liberals ended up calling themselves classical liberal.

What Keynes believed in his boom and bust. Government spends aot during recession then scales down massively after they are out and adopt other free market policies again.

How you think is contradicts my view is absurd.

John Locke was a mercentalist. Doesn't nt mean he wasn't a CL

Where do you get the idea that I ever said the government cannot interfere in the economy. In fact it should in recessions.

I linked Mises because I was proving that Keynes called himself a liberal and supported the British party. Back then, nobody called themselves a classical liberal. It wouldn't make claim as such because the distinction wasn't made until this year.

Which is yet a far better alternative to Marxism with it's repeated collapses and poverty.

Which is better. Venezuela or pretty much all of its market economic neighbors?

You claimed you gave examples, but you never gave them. Yes, world superpowers doing everything they can to destroy weaker countries can make them collapse.

Not to mention most countries that have gona socialist were already poor before they went socialist. Cherry picking those countries is like cherry picking poor capitalist nations as an example of capitalism not working( of which you acknowledge).

Read.

This is where pretty much all Keynesian policy is implemented. DURING RECESSION. When it's over cut back spending massively and revert to more free market policies.

You would only contradict. If I argued for a complete laissez-faire approach to the economy. I never did and by far most classical liberals do allow some state intervention when necessary.

Remember the HK example I mentioned during the 97 crisis?

Bullshit.

fsmitha.com/h2/ch32prc.html

Deng was a fucking hero and saved China. Had it continued under map's policies the country would be in ruins.

Sure when you compare Cuba to Haiti or Colombia. But it isn't near having the highest HDI amongst Latin American or Caribbean countries.

Bahamas, Barbados, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Antique and Barbara have it beat.

Top FUCKING kek. Turn off your Michael Moore documentary.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Cuba by almost all measures is worse for the Average American.

Cuba WILL implement reforms over the next year's and decade to make its economy more liberal. It is already happening.

So poverty, gdp, life expectancy, rates are not objective? Good to know.

Your study is useless is that it asks workers about their satisfaction with their job. It's like the same survey which asks neighborhoods if they feel safe while walking in their area at night.

What you need to prove to me right now is that ex Yugoslavia countries are worse off now than during tito. I want scientific statistical models for example gdp, poverty rates, life expectancy rates. Not fucking satisfaction surveys.

Citation needed

oh, you actually ended up replying almost two days later now i see. very well.

you didn't. because no such countries historically exist.

poor practice and policy is something we already established was influential to the failure of socialism in the 20th century. the point is to also factor in the empirical evidence for embargo and various attempted coups and imperialist ventures against them as well. next.

they are.

there are such instances, yes. once again, embargo and economic impediment amplifies what would already be poor practice into near-fatal or outright fatal consequences.

if competitivity for the sake of it is important then you are indirectly admitting that it is not the needs socialism fails in, but external musts that must exist only by virtue of adjacent meddling forces. even then, the USSR still holds the record for fastest industrialization, militarization and development in history. a socialist venture it had to make to surpass corporatist capitalist nazi germany from winning a world war and establishing a world empire, because it was actively outperforming liberal capitalist nations post-great depression.
if prosperity, which is innately a category decided by those who live there, is the factor we look at (it's the one i mainly look at, while you look at growth for the sake of it) then socialism has undeniably been preferable to people who've lived through both centrally planned socialism and the neoliberal capitalism that succeeded it.

pray tell.

nobody contests this. your reading comprehension and almost SJW-like fixation on self-titling is what signals retardation here, SSRIboy.

let's recap:
- the liberal doctrine gave birth to the capitalist mode of production post-mercantilism
- to differentiate between the various liberal capitalist doctrines that succeeded it like marginalism, keynesianism and neoliberalism, we title the original historical strand as 'classical' liberal
- following proper classification, keynes is not a classical liberal but a keynesian liberal
got it, brozac?

this is your brain on pure ideology.

you tell me, while keeping freshly in mind the still active embargoes against both cuba and venezuela, the numerous attempted coups at cuba since not just its overtaking by the cuban marxist-leninist party but the fact that it was prior to that not even industrialized as well as the looming coups against it.

which doesn't translate to either HDI or living satisfaction. furthermore, this is what capitalism is formally good at: growth. but it is not innately good at growth for the good of the majority, which is the working class. this is why it needs heavy regulation and socialized programs from the state to even satisfy these things.

I guess it must feel good to be a liberal when you have no concern for your fellow man, and when you can only laugh at humanity as it tries to improve it's lot in life.

I live in a neo liberal democracy, with welfare and health care. I'm feeling the same 'good' that you might be feeling, but I'm also interested to make the world a better place for everyone, rather than just certain islands of liberalism within the framework of global capitalism and poverty. The whole world can't live under the moderate successes of welfare states, user.

no, i've done so already and explained your autism above.

no, it's fact: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform
nber.org/papers/w17828.pdf
economics.utoronto.ca/public/workingPapers/BBGW.pdf

it actually very easily is. see above. keep freshly in mind all things it manages to surpass in spite of this so that i need not remind it to you, thanks.

they are, but only two of these are actually of direct relevance to an individual's well-being regardless of which economic system we presuppose.

you didn't read anything that was linked by me prior on life in yugoslavia, which includes all manner of sourced facts about what it was like, what was and what was not allowed, etc.

btw: can i know why you're constantly saging your own thread? don't you want as many people as possible to see it by bumping it so that you can have your worldview and ideology challenged?

Dorothea Jauernig (D.J.): You lived with your family in the country at the time of collectivization. How have you experienced the collectivization? How do you see it today?

Alexander Zinoviev (A.S.): We need to distinguish two different pages in my position. My personal attitude to various events and the results of my scientific work. Our village has disappeared completely. If we consider only the collectivization of this point of view, then one can say that collectivization was a crime or an error. But you have to pull the whole situation in the country into consideration. The industry needed workers. The country needed not only working, it took doctors, teachers, engineers, officers, etc. Without collectivisation it would have been impossible to get so many people for the development of the country. We have lost everything in the country. And our family has left the country. But I became a professor. My brother was Colonel. My older brother director of a factory. Another of my brothers were engineers, etc. Many millions of Russian families have been through a development. For many millions of families therefore the revolution had our revolution. The Stalinist period was of course a great tragedy. But these years were also the best years in Soviet history. You can not understand in what living conditions we lived. Our family lived in a room of 10 square meters. And in this room we lived to eight, sometimes ten men. And we were happy. Why? We visited the school. Everything was for us, the whole culture was open to us.
Another side: Any claim that the productivity of collective farms very low and private plots of production was much higher. That's a lie. Those who say that making a false comparison. Take, for example, a small parcel and say: Look, on this parcel working woman or two and sell them so much and vegetables, etc. But on the kolkhoz work 300 people. Now they are investigating how these people work on the small parcel, how many forces they need on the small plot. In the kolkhoz living conditions were much easier, shorter hours, and especially as the main result: The state has to get enough bread. Without collective farms that would be impossible.

D.J .: Collectivization is often referred to herein as a crime of Stalin.

A.S .: I am against collectivization. My family suffered. But as a scientist I have to say that was the only way for the country to survive. If Stalin had not carried out this policy, then the country would have been destroyed during the war immediately. And the industrialization and even these reprisals were inevitable.
Consider the present situation in the Soviet Union, trying to restore order without arrests, that is impossible. Already many are arrested and are more and more. At Stalin's time the situation in Russia was worse.
It is to assert a false ideology: All people were innocent and only the evil man Stalin and some nasty people raping everyone. That is a lie, an ideological lie. It was a struggle for survival, life and death.
It is perhaps the greatest injustice in the history when Stalin is so maligned - particularly bad it looks when Soviet people forget their own great story. In Russian history, these years were the greatest years ever
I repeat, I am not a communist. I criticized communism since my youth. I have always been anti-Stalinist. But now I am an old man, I will not lie in my lifetime.
Why so many people hate Stalin and the Soviet Union at all? Because the development of this country was tremendously fast, exceptionally fast. All capitalist countries were afraid. They were convinced that this system could be fought everywhere. And since the war against communism began. The II.Weltkrieg was against the Soviet Union. The West has Hitler directed against the Soviet Union. That was not Hitler alone. Now say all, Stalin was to blame. This is also an ideological lie. Practically the West was to blame for this war. The West has done everything to direct Hitler against the Soviet Union. Before the war, after the war and during the war.
The development of the Soviet Union today is a result not only of internal development, but also a result of the relations between the Soviet Union and the West. The Cold War was a real war, no less than the II.Weltkrieg. The Soviet Union was defeated. This situation is not simply the crisis of communism. This is the destruction of communism, from the inside, but from outside too.
I think the main cause is the betrayal of bureaucrats led Khrushchev. He destroyed the ideology and gradually the economy of socialism. There was a change of government, namely the rule of the working class to the rule of the bureaucracy as a new capitalist class.

D.J .: But another question: Are you working for a long time at the University of Moscow. How was teaching at the universities in the 50s and how was it later? Is it true that the Marxist-Leninists were kicked out in the 70s from the universities, as we were told in Moscow?

A.S .: The development was complex. On one hand, the ideological work was under Suslov (he was responsible for ideology under Brezhnev, the Red.) Enormously strong. But was also the Soviet ideology, leaving the Marxist basis. Formally, the Soviet ideology was Marxist-Leninist. Only in words, statements, etc. But in fact the Soviet ideology had lost its Marxist-Leninist basis. And that was one of the conditions of the present crisis.

D.J .: How do you understand this - one of the conditions of the present crisis?

A.S .: Back in the 60s there was the crisis. She began not in the economy but first in the ideology and the moral condition of the higher layers. As they say in Russian: A fish begins to stink at the head.
But at the present situation in the Soviet Union are the people like Gorbachev, Shevardnadze, Yeltsin, Yakovlev, Sobchak so guilty. This is a result of their activities. They are criminals. I am sure that the future generations will condemn these people mercilessly.
This Perestroika people have now only worried about their own skins. You have betrayed our country and our people. If it is possible to retain their position, they are willing to sell the land. In practice, they play the role of a fifth column of the West.
I am not a communist. I say this only as a scientist. This is the result of my research.

D.J .: Thank you for the interview

Sure.

Angola and Somalia. Both failed socialist states with no embargoes.

Are you aware of why there are so many coups and uprisings in your government? Because people become tired living under your system as they are now allowed to prosper and in rease their living standards.

Your graphs are irrelevant trie. Please y all means compare median income, gdp, and poverty rates between the USSR and the US.

nytimes.com/1989/01/29/world/soviet-openness-brings-poverty-out-of-the-shadows.html

TWENTY PERCENT POVERTY

My fucking sides. Instead of economic output, look at median income, household poverty rates, hdi and such between the USSR and the US idiot. And then keep in mind that soviet citizens became richer and had living standards improve after the collapse.
So what if industrial output grew faster in the USSR compared to the US? You are fucking deluded to think that the average citizen eas happier or lived better there.

On cuba:

The average Cuban monthly salary is 20 dollars.

latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2014/06/17/average-salary-in-cuba-rose-1-pct-last-year-to-20-month/

In America it is $3,769

The average cuban does not live better than the average american.

You explictly stated that keynes did not call himself a classical liberal, but nobody called themself a classical liberal back then.

Keynes believed in heavy handed government intervention during times of recession. Where did I ever argue the government should keep out of the economy completely moron?

Read Apo

No this is not true. Venezuelas HDI ranks lower than Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Costa Rica and Panama. I wouldn't say 7th is nearly close to the top.

The monthly wage in Venezuela in 2010 was 1881 VEF that can buy you 392 USD of goods.

tradingeconomics.com/venezuela/wages

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage#International_Labour_Organization_.28ILO.29_statistics

salaryconverter.nigelb.me/

Worse than pretty much every country.

Dengs economic liberal reforms improved China across the board.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform#Economic_performance_since_reform
Economy grew rapidly and poverty declined from 41% (thabks mao!) to 5%

It is a fact that China would be way worse off had Deng not liberalized the economy.

No because im double posting and it courtesy not to bump the thread with subsquent replies by the same poster.

you should probably learn what those labels mean before you embrace them. you cant be for the free market and government intervention, lad.

And yes income inequality rose but poverty dramatically deined and everybody its citizens became richer.

Regarding Yugoslavia I couldn't find any claims or sources about economic and living conditions acter Tito. If you are making the claim that it was better, i'd have to see proof and not surveys. But since I already provided a study proving that those two measures improved after the ussr collapse. I fucking doubt Titos country had better living standards than western europe.

Fucking idiot. I'm ok with interventions during recessions like what HK did in 97.

seriously, just read more theory before you start playing with labels. classical economists do not support government intervention during recessions. they even blame the great depression on government intervention (monetary policy) and contend that FDR's policies prolonged it.

keynes' policies were a break from classical theory. if you support them then you are not a 'classical liberal.' this isnt debatable.

projection.

dare I ask

Combined monthly wage will be raised to around 65k in September 1st, close to $55.

Yeah, Venezuela is a world leader at increasing the homicide and kidnappings per capita rates without being a war torn country.

Huh? I live in Mexico and we became the host of the most dangerous city in the world and we're capitalist. What's your fucking point? The only reason Venezuela is paid attention to is because there is something for Western powers to make a profit out of (oil) and they can't right now because they're not allies. In the meantime, the same type of shit happens with other countries who are "allied" with the U.S. and I don't here shit from the media.

People pay attention to Venezuela because the economy went to shit quickly. It was just ok in 2011, and now people barely eat. Venezuela's national homicide rate was around 20 in the 90s, now it's around 80.

Even though Caracas has been dangerous for a while, many other places were still safe before. Not now.

Nope not at all. It does allow some degree of intervention especially during recession.You are thinking of libertarianism or anarcho capitalist

I can support most policies while being diffefent on others. I believe in a free market but not in an aboslute sense and do think some regulations are needed. I do not believe in massive regulations except in times of recessions.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siad_Barre

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147596707000741