For all of us who support economic freedom, progress through market competition and the most important of all, individualism. Capitalism work when you do. Capitalist societies value risk taking and investment to grow enterprise and voluntary interactions to maximise social cooperation. This group is suited for libertarians, anarcho-capitalists or minarchists.

  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
Add media Report RSS What If There Were No Prices? Railroad Thought Experiment - Learn Liberty
Comments
ZeTo49
ZeTo49

«Here is the marvell: by choosing the route that is cheapest for your company you'll thereby choose what is best for society.»
Fair enough. what if the going around the money (cheaper way) is environmentally sepaking, a problem? How about the polution it causes to nearby towns, their buildings and the side cost it takes to "fix" it every year or month or whatever it takes? And if that town has a high birth rate? what about mothers and children? How about diseases, even lethal ones? how about the time it takes to deliver whatever it is that the train carries on? And if the country is at war and badly needs the oranges or the riffles or the nurses or whatever?

On a side quest, what if people who benefit from market flow decide to store their money and not to invest it? What would happen to the prices of that hypothetic town shown in the video? then what about the quality of the services?

«how will you begin to make sense of that amount of data?»
So, how did, historically, the soviet union industrialized? how did China start with feudalism and in a decade was in an industrialized position without private property?
Moddb.com
The very same question for these countries, Cuba and others in the same corner after nationalizations? How did a country with nothing to offer such as Cuba promoted electrification of 90% of civil houses? Why did the previous Cuba cared less about it? Examples can go on if you want.

Reply Good karma Bad karma0 votes
TheUnbeholden Author
TheUnbeholden

"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

Reply Good karma+1 vote
TheUnbeholden Author
TheUnbeholden

" 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.

Reply Good karma+1 vote
Zeto55
Zeto55

Oh, just saw this now!
Again, as before, this is an exchange of ideas. There is no need to go edgy over this. The civil war is not cooked yet.

«[...] right-wing govts can be the only ones to carry out what you said [...]»
I don't think so, and I've pointed out precisely what Socialists countries did back in the good old days. It is true when you say that right wing (even fascist) programmes can do it, but they are not the only ones, c'mon.

«materialism (the pursuit of material gain & what you personally stand to benefit from any decision or endeavor)». True, but that is not "materialism", as you know already. Materialism is opposed to Idealism. I don't need to lecture on that at this point. The point is, and you seem to avoid it, or overlook it so far, is that Materialists (especially Communists) are, in fact, concerned about the role of consciouness and ideology. That is the prima-facie of ML, it is all that matters in the first "chapter" of it.

«The idea that all human beings are interchangable [...] IS NONSENSE». I agree. Marx is in agreement, Engels as well, Lenin and Stalin, Trotsky too. Communists do not beleive that all men are equally interchangable. Nor that there is no different people whatsoever. In respect to the Economic system they are into, they diverge mostly and fundamently by class, which means having or having not the means of their own survival. In your case, you make race above it. While there is indeed black and white people, I am more concerned, as a communist, to the fact that they have or have not control of their own currency, jobs, or in short, if they have self-determination. I care less for their colour or their stupid, nonsensical religious beliefs. If they are against the law, they are to be punished in that respect. We are not liberals. It is nonesensical to make the bridges.

«Simply put Leftism doesn't work». Ofc not, it never did anywhere in the Globe at any time in history. Now, to correct yourself: "Simply put Leftism doesn't work, but Communism did". It did because it existed in time and space (you can surely be against the way it took place, but that is another 5 cents). There was no place nor time for an Anarchist or Trot society. Name one. Stop equating the two. is nonsensical.

TBC

Reply Good karma Bad karma+1 vote
TheUnbeholden Author
TheUnbeholden

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.

Reply Good karma+2 votes
Zeto55
Zeto55

«work is an obstacle to be overcome on the path to having material wealth that can be enjoyed and thus decadence sets in.»
It isn't. Under communism, work is vital. The early Marx was dreaming about the abolition of work. He was wrong, as Stalin and Lenin pointed. Read a bit about it first.

«They treat employment like the liberal middle-class dolts treat virtues/values, as a subjective lifestyle choice or hobby. »
False. Work is duty. On that we are similar to Fascists. If people claiming to be communists do not work, they are hipocrits and have no place in communist societies. Thus:
«Communists are concerned with the exact same MATERIALIST end goals as capitalists are. »
it is also not true. We beleive that Left wing politics and Patriotism are the same thing. Care for the people. Destroy any enemy of the people. Simple.

I think we could agree that center politics (Liberalism-Centrism) have no idea of Work-ethics, while we, on the "far" spectrum do. That is why I agree with you when you say «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.».
We do oppose it in diverse ways, however we might believe in collective power before individual one. In contrast, Communists, particularly, would not accept the Hobbesian assertion that "Humans are not ants", while you would accept individuality is positive under certain restrains. In sum, Communists are trully Totalitarian. We are kind of proud of it.

That said,
«Thus Communism and Liberal Capitalism violate individual truth & natural law»
cannot be true. We do violate individual truth and Natural Law (we are on the side of Positivism), but I think that Capitalism stimulates it (gender, race, etc rethoric) while we do not accept it as a premise for a developed society.

Reply Good karma Bad karma+1 vote
TheUnbeholden Author
TheUnbeholden

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.

Reply Good karma+1 vote
Zeto55
Zeto55

«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... »
Absolutely correct. That is why Stalin reversed NEP!

Understand this: There was true Communism under Stalin (1924/1926-1953). There was also the revisionist period which, in fact, was relying on a black market. you have to understand: when I speak of Soviet Union, it was Stalin's period. Numbers are what they are. People died? Sure. That is, historically speaking, the price for progress. Liberals understand this as well with their little revolutions for freternity.

«almost all of them Jews»
Already told you Stalin killed most of them. I can't see the connection with Jews and Stalin's rule. They were shut up or they were forced to cooperate (see Neorealism under Stalin, for instance).

Reply Good karma Bad karma+1 vote
TheUnbeholden Author
TheUnbeholden

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.

Reply Good karma+1 vote
Zeto55
Zeto55

«Revolutionary Catalonia»
C'mon... with such standard, any revolution proves how anarchism works. Franco would not have won if Communists took lands first. You know that. I know people from the POUM and their stories. It is all about freedom but not about militant organization. Same **** with Trots. That was why Stalin had to remove them everywhere. We are not neutrals regarding the far-left. They are too fluid for our tastes.

«because Marxists & Communists, as well as Anarchists & Trotskyists IGNORES the value of PERSONALITY i.e. the individual. »
I see your point. The thing is, under Stalin, things worked even with far-left sabbotages. Read about it (Lenin wrote of the dangers of Revolutionary Socialists, aka, far-left). Collective works, but kills. Anarchists and Trots want collectivism without the hard-dirty job.

«I believe in rewarding hard-work with slightly more money»
ok, I do not. I beleive (and had practice it everytime) we should work has hard as we can. Give everything you can and be a role model. If there are financial rewards, that is a thing I do not pursuit per se. beleive it or not. Work Ethics and Socialist Morals are the same.

«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.»
I'm reading some of them. It is... demanding sometimes (especially conservative literature). I'll do that to understand the enemy, as all true communists do.

«True socialist regimes [...]»
Please develop. It is an interesting idea. Some people think that Plato's Republic (Books V to VII) are the origin of that conception.

Reply Good karma Bad karma+1 vote
TheUnbeholden Author
TheUnbeholden

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].

Reply Good karma+1 vote
Zeto55
Zeto55

«WHICH YOU admit to in previous conversations.»
and I admit it again.

«NURTURE over NATURE»
Inside your narrative, it makes sense. Outside it, it does not. We beleive Nature has to be overcomed. Human Nature as well. Ofc this can lead us to something more than "race" - which is your goal with this. Race, gender, or in short, "phenomenological dispositions" or phenotypic plasticity are a no concern. I find strange that an Idealist cares so mch about such Liberal constructs. The only thing that separates us, is class and the possetssion of means of production. Whomever takes it, leads history. be it the Jew or the Yellow man.

«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,»
On the lowests, stupid level of existence, yes, we all care for material stuff (food and water at least). Humans deserve more, that is why we stimulate arts. Nothing new here. What you seem to oversee is that Materialists beleive that what there is, is MATTER! Ideas are a reflection of Matter. in that sense, we are Physicalists about the Mind and Dialectic Materialists about History. Movement itself is not and idea, it is a reflection of matter. A Materialist beleives that Matter rules ideas. Idealists, at least the radical tradition (e.g.: Monadology - Leibniz; Radical Subjectivism - Berkeley), use the ideal/idea to stand in opposition of the chaos of matter. In that sense, they prize the individual (the rational one) over chance.
Materialists, on the other side, think that collective or indivuals can understand a "logic" (much to say about this little nasty word) in Matter. Communists accept the fact that, if the poorest of the poor, the unneducated, the scum realize they have the power to kill and spit fire, they will rule the land. That is the difference between "Idealist" related revolutions (Glorious revolution, for instance, around Law and property - Liberalism 1-0-1) and "Materialist" related revolutions (October to be the higher moment on this).

«The importance they place on the ''strike''»
Strike and such strategies are abolished under communism. There is a personal motivation on it, but it will be destroyed under communism. This is why Stalin removed any self-autonomous collectivities (like trots love to dream of) because they are still in pre communist mentality.

«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. »
Beautiful. That is why you are an "idealist" and I am a "materialist". We have much to disagree on this.

«Economics, like men & women, is bound by duty & not expropriating from, conflicting or competing with. »
I accept this, as long as we are not talking about gender, but only about economical domination. In that aspect it is not morals or gender, but means of production. Liberals don't get it either, or throw the gender/animal rights/wahtever card at you to avoid talking about domination via money and coorporations (I don't care if this is the jew or the blue man. Remove them, if you are to care for your people: class-struggle is not race/religion based. We are to destroy that mindset and replace it for the NEW MAN, the SOCIALIST MAN. read more about that, even Che wrote about it and it has nothing to do with genetics).

Reply Good karma Bad karma+2 votes
Zeto55
Zeto55

«[...] That can only be calculated in money [...]». I see your point when you call Mises here (a thing can only be priced/calculated that way). My point, however, and I don't know if you avoid that for convenience or lack of understanding, or if I simply did not put it out clearly: Money is important to use it in rational ways, meaning: does it matter to build here? It does. What is the criterium? it must ask for the people's needs, not economical ones, i.e., it must serve the nation and the people living in, not economical interests. I think you agree with that as well. That said, what matters here is the need, not the money. While it calculates in money, it also depends on demand created by and only by the State (in Communist societies, that is). The absence of free market is vital, once you have the monopoly under State survaillance to do only one thing: benefit living conditions of workers and farmers (priority no 1).

«Communists have NEVER been able to answer the economic calculation problem (ECP) ever.»
That is not the issue. Marx himself said, as all Political Economists of his time that, for a economic calculation to take place, you have to assume that some things have the designated price. When you walk into any "Introduction to Economics", the first question can be: "how much did your meal cost?". You will say something like 2 bucks or something. But then you have to take account on everything that is meant to be involved in the meal (distribution cost, oil cost, gasoline cost, wages in various sectors, and so on and so forth). Thus the answer is impossible. Marx said it before Mises, others said it before Marx. What Marx, however is pointing out, and again, you missed it, is that there is a thing called VALUE, that can only be determined in a philosophical way, even JS Mill, Ricardo, A. Smith had problems with it. In that regard, Marx showed that, for ideological convinience, the part removed from the worker, was never placed into account (he called it surplus-value). This could go into a different way, but I needed to stress it out: The point is not to solve ECP, is to reveal what VALUE is about. Next.

TBC

Reply Good karma Bad karma+1 vote
TheUnbeholden Author
TheUnbeholden

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.

Reply Good karma+1 vote
Zeto55
Zeto55

«Value is relational & thus you have no leg to stand on to demand equality of anykind.»
You know then that marx was an Aristotelian! If value is expression of relation, then you are worng by standing there is no equality...
Equality is when there is equivalence (even momentarly) between (at least) 2 positions. Marx accepted it (as all Political Economics previous to him). He simply said that in that equivalent, there is more than mere equivalence. There is something that is it not disscussed: exploitation. This is accepted even by Catholics (See some Epistles of the first half of the XX scentury, clearly trying to place class-war, exploitation and domination as the origin of all immorality. They do it in response of the COmmunist project, as they did in Marx's time, during the failed 1848 European revolutions).

«Marx committed axiological intrinsicism, i.e non-sense »
Sure. Marxists in the Soviet Union were to interpret most of his texts. Marx himself was more into a revolutionary Liberal idea rather than what became known as Real existing Socialism. You have to lecture yourself on this division more, if I might politely suggest. For instance, dig the correspondence between Marx and Lincoln: Marx wanted him to turn a civil war into a class-based war (French Revolutionary Liberal imaginary, still). Lenin accepted some of it, while Stalin knew that the revolution had to become national and Patriotic (Hitler knew this as well), or, in other words, to inject a sense of renewed culture, where the Socialist project would stand. This is why Stalin spoke always about Russian rulers before him, for instance, as a catalyst for progress (internal documents mainly, about law and order).

«Marxists/Communists generally do, criticize»
THat is simply for rethorical purposes. Communists are ready to send their mothers into slavery, cut relations with their family and such violent moves. Don't tell me, against R. Spencer, that such positions do not envy you. Determination are part of the COmmunist man, not mere criticism. Critics are to be abolished under Communism. Even French Radical Literary Anarchists of the 60's said that Marx was just as good to go to the flame as any reactionary (because it was all about Criticism culture). Think about that: Our wet dreams spire around controlled chaos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq7Xjqgeg2Y ).

Reply Good karma Bad karma+2 votes
Zeto55
Zeto55

«The latest on the debate was here and it never progressed any further». Sure, agreed, and it doesn't need to, as pointed above. The displacement is theoretically and raises more questions not placed in the "regular" ECP discussion, that's all.

«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. » Only this type of state? I don't think so. Current Social Democracies are interfering on markets (barely but productively - another bottle of O2 to the Global finance system). And they are doing better than 3 or 5 years ago. I feel better for you, when you decide to take away that AnaCap BS from your shoulders. Protectionism and Regulation is good and wanted, when is good and wanted (La Palisse law).

But you did not answer how the Soviet Union got on its feet... How did it industrialize and so on. You can talk about morals here, but we are talking about 1-0-1 economical views. if you want to make it to morals, then we must not take off the window the "Irish Starvation Years", the "American railroads with Chinese workforce", the "Opium War", the "Portuguese fire on the African coast", the "Panamanian's Jesuit" case and so many others that would be perfect for that deviance in narrative.

Am I bashed now?
The beatiful thing about two intelligent persons is that they can be enemies and hate each other, but not be uncivilised and present only arguments, as far as they can, for the sake of the civilized conversation (how to be a higher man, hidden point).

Reply Good karma Bad karma+1 vote
Post a comment
Sign in or join with:

Only registered members can share their thoughts. So come on! Join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) and join in the conversation.

Description

Source: Youtube.com

see also:

What Do Prices "Know" That You Don't? - Youtube.com

Ron Paul Curriculum Sample: The Socialist Calculation Problem - Youtube.com

Socialist Calculation Problem or Knowledge Problem:
Econlib.org
Fee.org
Mises.org

Essentialhayek.org

Details
Date
Duration
Size
1280×720
Views
2 (1 today)
Filename
what-if-there-were-no-prices-railroad-thought-experiment-learn-liberty.mp4
Options
URL
Embed
Share
New
Add media
Feed
RSS
Report
Report