What If There Were No Prices? Railroad Thought Experiment - Learn Liberty video - Pro-Capitalism

"Pollution, environment, diseases, time, foreign policy"

Govts that protect the environment, genetics, culture and provide for the social justice for its founding ethnic population will be needed for that. Not a central planning for a collectivization of all resources, removal of private property, wage labor, money and inheritance and/or class. In other words, right-wing govts can be the only ones to carry out what you said - because the leftists only take these common good causes on in order to push their agenda of a insane moral crusade against self-ownership & consequently on all business, farming, charity/small trade, property and all forms of identity in religion, culture/tradition, nation, ethnicity and race. The idea that all human beings are interchangable (nurture over nature), moral relativity, political correctness, nihilism, internationalist "mass" concept & all that matters is materialism (the pursuit of material gain & what you personally stand to benefit from any decision or endeavor) IS ALL NONSENSE.

Simply put Leftism doesn't work: Youtube.com

''Picture the building of a new railroad. Should it be built at all, and if so, which out of a number of conceivable roads should be built? In competitive and monetary economy, this wuestion would be answered by monetary calculation. The new road will render less expensive the transport of some goods, and it may be possible to calculate whether this reduction of expense transcends that involved in the building and upkeep of the next line. That can only be calculated in money. It is not possible to attain the desired end merely by counterbalancing the various physical expenses and physical savings.

Where one cannot express hours of labor, iron, coal, all kinds of building material, machines and other things necessary for the construction and upkeep of the railroad in a common unit it is not possible to make calculations at all. The drawing up of bills on an economic basis is only possible where all the godds concerned can be referred back to omoney. Admittedly, monetary calculation has its inconveniencees and serious defetcs, but we have certainly nothing better to put in its place, and for the practical purposes of life monetary calculation as it exists under a sound monetary system always suffices. Were we to dispense with, any economic system calculation would become absolutely impossible''. ~Mises

Communists have NEVER been able to answer the economic calculation problem (ECP) ever. You haven't either. Without prices that can reflect cost-effeciency under a common unit of measurement, there just isn't any way to even begin to make accurate decisions for the use of limited resources for thousands if not millions of people. This is why Communism survived on a huge black-market to meet the demands of people due to its ineffeciency in the form of shortages or unmet quota's. The latest on the debate was here and it never progressed any further: Ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu

" what if people who benefit from market flow decide to store their money and not to invest it? "

The state (a right-wing one) could interfere to prevent the money from being wasted on financial speculation, interest, rent (non-work) or in black markets.

Communists are concerned with the exact same MATERIALIST end goals as capitalists are. To have a abundance of wealth & retire, a sort of automated luxury communism where everyone can simply move from one job to another as if our job doesn't matter. They treat employment like the liberal middle-class dolts treat virtues/values, as a subjective lifestyle choice or hobby. work is an obstacle to be overcome on the path to having material wealth that can be enjoyed and thus decadence sets in. The Bourgeoisie achieved this goal to the envy of the Proletariat that decided that it was robbed of its take and thus rose up to claim that wealth for itself. Simply put, they don't like work. This is in direct opposition to the real right-wing which treats employment as something to perfect and come to terms with ones own limitations through, a life goal and a artform. Ancient corporatism or guild system is the ideal economic system of the real right-wing. There is no common ground between materialists and idealists, the 2 are in direct opposition... except that we (as radicals in our own way) oppose the current system.

Collectivism is Individualism seeking Strength in Numbers on given common interests. Hence the common interest(s) becomes the primary focus of the Collectivist narrative and is thus easy to define. Collectivism worked for Communism because it worked with an existing and established group - the proletariat - to sell them the idea that together, rather than apart, they could achieve all their common interests, and fulfillment of other individual interests may follow thereafter. Comparatively speaking one could argue that Collectivists get more **** done than Individualists because the victory of a collective influences the outcome for every participant of the collective and they are all somewhat elevated, whereas in Individualism all victories are... individual, and few people achieve them. Moreover in individualism absolutely every single other individual is a competitor, even when you struggle for the same prize, whereas in collectivism everyone within the collective ideally shares in the victory.
Ultimately, however, both Individualism and Collectivism are no good for the real right-wing, as their fundamental premise is individual interest, regardless if it is pursued individually or collectively. Interests are always selfish and self-serving, going against any kind of Order in favor of one's own mere whims and wants, which are always material and inevitably lead to degeneracy.

Under both individualism and collectivism the individuals personality is not valuable, atoms are just as replaceable as cogs and just as lacking in any real personality, only difference is the less rigid structure of Individualism, where you can maintain the illusion of being your own person, while walking in a sea of clones who can replace you at a moment's notice, because both Individualism and Collectivism work on the premise of equality and necessitate easy replaceability. In both instances personality can be sacrificed, either for a collective mentality or a fake, marketable "individual" identity. Thus Communism and Liberal Capitalism violate individual truth & natural law with this mindset that who we are does not matter, that we are all workers or that we are all economic assets. You cannot deny that all leftists are egalitarians, materialists, internationalists, against class authority & natural collectives. Especially when it comes to the latter since they literally banned genetics/biology i.e Lysenkoism because it ruined their narrative of a egalitarianism because of the fact that genes are affecting our behavior. Setting back a ESSENTIAL SCIENCE by over 6 decades.

China is a model combination of authoritarian government and economic liberalism. Its not economically anything like Soviet Russia in the official sense. Unofficially the Soviets where heavily reliant on a massive black market that resulted in trillions of dollars going into large manufacturers & stores that sell those black market goods i.e a well kept secret by Communist govts and the press until its collapse. A unofficial "free market" in effect due to a massive miss allocation of resources by the Soviets, it made the KGB a attractive place to work in for extra Rubles. Their narrative of "expropriate the expropriators" & "smashing capitalism" is hollow if they just turn right around and end up DOING the same thing the capitalist liberals do... all while pursuing a purely material goal. China is also a paper tiger heavily reliant on U.S trade, as I've explained in the front page.

"Russia's Underground Millionaires," by a Jew, Konstantin Simis, formerly a Soviet lawyer and official in the Ministry of Justice, who says that in 1977, when the manuscript of a book that is to be published in this country was found in his apartment, he was invited to leave Russia and join his son, a professor in an American university.

According to this article, the Soviet is as rotten politically as the United States, although, of course, there are superficial differences. Corruption within the Communist Party we naturally take for granted, but here we are told of massive corruption of the Communist administration by bribery from outsiders, almost all of them Jews. There are distinct analogies to the almost universal political corruption that was established in this country in 1917 by the crackpots and mutton-heads who tried to prohibit our people from drinking alcoholic beverages.
We are told that there functions efficiently within the Soviet an enormous black market with its own factories, its own distribution-system, and its own retail outlets, operating comfortably by virtually wholesale bribery of Communist managers and police, and operated by capitalists, almost all of them Jews, who accumulate what are large fortunes by any standard and store their surplus wealth in gold, jewels, and other things that are intrinsically valuable. A typical entrepreneur, who was arrested, through some mischance, by the Secret Police, was found to have in his possession such valuables to the amount of 350,000,000 rubles, which, at current exchange, would equal $546,000,000.

There where tens of thousands of such factories by the way, many in outward appearance where state run factories with state equipment.
Once they fulfill their quote they move on to producing for capitalists & filling their coffers.

"There was no place nor time for an Anarchist or Trot society. Name one."

Revolutionary Catalonia, watch the video FFS: Youtube.com
It created poverty and unrest due to a lack of expertise in running businesses or farms when run by communes and "worker councils". It also disincentived hard working farmers/workers by giving equal pay through coupons or rations. Many hard-working families who own small craft/trade, Christians, investors, lenders, business & farm owners where killed, and those who survived later rebelled - because Marxists & Communists, as well as Anarchists & Trotskyists IGNORES the value of PERSONALITY i.e. the individual. Thats the reality. I linked this to you AGES AGO. I believe in rewarding hard-work with slightly more money (as a means of exchange which I do not treat as a limited commodity), social credit & vocational benefits.

As for Communism it worked ONLY BECAUSE OF A MASSIVE BLACK MARKET (which overcame the issue of large product shortages due to the economic calculation problem) & has little of value to contribute besides criticism of capitalism. Not to mention they are behind 3 Holodomors.

Instead of calling on Russian marxists & Dugin eurasianism, Literally just read Oswald Spengler, Julius Evola, René Guénon, Frithjof Schuon, Plínio Salgado, Gottfried Feder, Ezra Pound, T. S. Eliot, G.K Chesterton, Richard Wagner and Francis Parker Yockey. You'll learn more by looking at ancient societies, true socialists & radical traditionalists then any modern ideology. Communism didn't even last 1 century. True socialist regimes (Roman empire, Spanish empire, British empire, Prussians & Spartans) have lasted for hundreds of years, they proved their worth by their longevity.

The driving-force of class-war is the will to annihilation of Culture. Marxists pride themselves on having a lack of identity, it champions that WHICH YOU admit to in previous conversations. This is further evidenced by abolishing genetics, they value NURTURE over NATURE. Identity/culture and loyalty are intertwined. That destruction reduces ones loyalty to his/her people and nation, if you don't care about your own ethnic group then of course it allows foreigners to take over that society which will change it permanently in predictable ways by looking at the homeland THEIR PEOPLE created. That is nature. Read the Heartiste formulation of diversity + proximity = conflict, or just look at former Yugoslavia, Brazil, Algeria, Papua New Guinea and Pakistan. All multi-ethnic and multi-racial, and all poverty and crime ridden.

''Dictatorship of the Proletariat'' is a catchword that symbolizes their desire to radically change a person by abolishing class, bring together a global internationalist mass of equalized cheap manual labor regardless of whether all people are suited for it. The result of that is people have a unrealistic assessment of their own limitations & potential, their freedom to choose any job they feel like doing inevitably leads a person to spending alot of time and effort on useless dead end jobs or ones that are unsuitable to the person in question. A lack of restraint and being able to constantly change ones mind hampers a person in mastering a vocation and therefore fulfillment of the right goal. The more paths you have to your goal the less likely you are of fulfilling it, since only one path is the ideal one.

If class and history are expressions of economics then satifying physical needs & ones own pleasure is given higher priority than any spiritual goals, something that can provide meaning & purpose, where events can reflect metaphysical truths about nature, family, ethnicity, race, gender, people and themselves, encouring virtue and spirituality for personal development, producing capable leadership and finally for the carrying out of multi-generational goals. Materialists don't do the latter because they only do something if there is a ''forseeable future benefit'' which is always a limited calculation and always for a material goal, if they don't see that material gain within a decade then they won't carry it out, thus many future generations won't get to see the fruitation of something that inspires them, provide meaningful achievement, glory & accomplishment or missing out on the most effective way of connecting people together to past generations.

The rejection of personality is evident by the value they place on the worker's contribution and see all the other necessary pre-requisites for giving workers the tools, infrastructure, instruction, pressure & direction towards useful and worthwhile production (as opposed to outdated production or for ones own personal happiness/pleasure) so that they can actually have a way to provide their labor, the preceding work to that is simply a source of ''exploitation'' i.e the labor of a vocational organizer, entrepreneur, administrator, inventor & scholar. The importance they place on the ''strike'' is just the exercising of the collective self-interest of the worker's (doing manual labor is the only form of work deserving of a consideration) and ignores the functional importance of the other classes, whom also play a part in determining the value of their contribution in exchanges, and the risks they take in maintaining and expanding businesses/vocations (a continual process), their creative contributions in its design, ability to embody the spirit of responsibility, willingness to serve the common purpose of National renewal (productive work, health consciousness, environmental protection, virtues & natural law), engaging in & promoting civil service, energy and competence of their direction (leadership). Responsibility is when decisions are made by the exercising of authority that result in negative outcomes requiring one to step down, as is a dereliction of duty or doing the duties of someone not in your vocation and/or social strata.

I don't believe that any of that can be ignored in a analysis or be reduceable to mere economics (i.e self-interests, expropriation & destruction of particular groups) when in reality it all comes down to is ethics, morality & social order. Which are entirely derived from the truth of our nature. Art, most of religion, war & politics are expressions of masculinity, not economic class-struggle. Economics, like men & women, is bound by duty & not expropriating from, conflicting or competing with. The distinction is qualitative between true socialists and [insert any other ideology opinions & ideas here].

Marx committed axiological intrinsicism, i.e non-sense in his Third Thing argument. The third thing is not actually a thing at all, but a disposition. A relation between exhchangers and the objects of exchange. Exchange is not by itself predicated on and nor does it evince an kind of say about the objects of exchange per se. But only about the relation they hold to the exchangers i.e each exchange values what he is exchanging for more than what he is exchanging lest the impetus for exchange be non-existent. There is no intrinsic value or axiological equality between products/resources as Marx & Communists say there is, you made a deliberate over simplification of their arguments in order do what Marxists/Communists generally do, criticize. Value is relational & thus you have no leg to stand on to demand equality of anykind. This is a common argument that every marxist makes that I've come across.