By Allen Gindler
Contra Marx, the laws of economics are immutable and are the same no matter what historical epoch exists.
pull down to refresh
related posts
29 sats \ 14 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 11 Oct
Yes, praexeology has been the same for all the history of mankind. To deny that human action exists in the form it exists in, is folly. People wonder why totalitarianism and communism, but I repeat myself, don’t work, have never worked and will never work. This is the reason why. The only way the marxists manage to pull the wool over people’s eyes is to weave great dreams and lies of the possible and compare them to the reality of free enterprise. By now, people should be able to look at real results in the real world and see the truth.
reply
10 sats \ 13 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 11 Oct
That they don't is why we need to be able to separate ourselves from them. As Hoppe says, those who seek to settle disputes through violence are technical problems for civilized people to deal with.
reply
33 sats \ 12 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 11 Oct
I hadn’t seen that, but it makes absolute sense. The thing I find odd, is that marxists will never compare the real results with real results. They always make mental construct sets to compare to real results. That is how they fool people into believing in their BS. If their ideas were so potent, N. Korea, China and The Soviet Union should have all been paradise rather than slaughterhouses.
reply
10 sats \ 11 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 11 Oct
At the very least, one of the Communist experiments should be doing as well as at least one of the private property economies.
reply
33 sats \ 10 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 11 Oct
That has never happened yet and I don’t think it will ever happen. The closest the Marxist’s have ever come to it is Dengism (communism with a Chinese flavor) and you can see the results of that happening at this very moment. The Chinese bubble is bursting and I don’t think they can save it because they will try the usual, current remedies. IMHO, Xi is on his way out (lost the Mandate of Heaven) and their economy will collapse. The other alternative is the tried, tested and true method of WAR.
reply
10 sats \ 9 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 11 Oct
The other thing about China is that they're sort of Communist in name only. They embraced markets to a very significant extent and the Chinese people are very entrepreneurial.
Obviously, they'd be much more prosperous if they leaned even further into markets, but they're more of a standard "mixed" economy than real communist experiments like Maoist China or the USSR.
reply
33 sats \ 8 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 11 Oct
Of course, Deng was a real counter-revolutionary, when it came to the economy. He embraced market to a certain extent. Xi, on the other hand, has tried to wind in the line that Deng let out to the markets. Xi and his cronies really like this crony capitalism that is taking over the world. It allows them, personally, to join the oligarch class around the world.
reply
0 sats \ 7 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 11 Oct
My sense was that China ran out of market reforms that wouldn't cut into some crony's racket.
I agree with you that they'll need a change from the top, in order to advance their economy further.
view replies
22 sats \ 9 replies \ @Satosora 11 Oct
"As we progress into the 21st century, many societies have adopted “mixed” economic policies, sacrificing the effectiveness of market forces for the elusive goal of economic “equality,” irresponsibly neglecting the objective nature of economic laws and the lessons of history."
I feel society has gotten so soft that we need to treat all people fairly, which in the wild, they would have been dropped from the pack.
reply
20 sats \ 8 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 11 Oct
Fairness and equality are very different things.
reply
34 sats \ 7 replies \ @Satosora 11 Oct
You are right.
I just feel our values in society are making us flounder.
reply
20 sats \ 6 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 11 Oct
Partly, that's because striving for equality comes at the expense of fairness. People don't want to invest effort into an unfair system.
reply
33 sats \ 5 replies \ @Satosora 11 Oct
True, but if there is no incentive to produce, and produce well, what is the point?
reply
30 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 11 Oct
Free riders don't like fairness, because they don't want to have to contribute in order to take. That's what equality is fundamentally about, not being required to contribute to the system you take from.
Fairness, on the other hand, is getting what you've earned.
reply
48 sats \ 2 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 11 Oct
Also, fairness is getting what you earn and earning what you get and not having to surrender it under the threat of force. That is the wool being pulled over people’s eyes and the gullibility being demonstrated.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined OP 11 Oct
Yes, good amendment.
view replies
39 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 11 Oct
Can you imagine if SN were like that?
Im so glad it isnt.
Not that their arent a lot of sat farmers, but still.
reply