This any good?

Really, because it's what created you bitch.

It's not a theory book. It's just a polemic about how socialism is the same as fascism. Since Denmark isn't building concentration camps (as far as we know) it's pretty safe to say that Hayek was wrong about how economics and politics coincide. I don't hate it, It was a fair argument to make back the , because what caused the fascist phenomena wasn't understood, but with what we know now, there's really no point in reading it, other than to understand it's historical role

>socialism is the same as fascism
How is it not?

Keep in mind, Hayek is the ONLY Austrian economist worth reading because of these reasons. He was more a political scientist than an economist, as you say, however his points about controlling the economics meddling with people's lives is very worth your time to look into.

:3

It's a huge generalization. If your seriously asking, you have to do away with labels and "isms" because they are so vague that there is practically no limit to what they entangle. But generally, socialism is wealth redistribution and government programs and fascism is state controlled genocide. In case it isn't clear why there is no correlation between these two policies, let's go to historical examples. Denmark does not commit genocide. Canada is not committing genocide. You could argue that raising taxes is "symbolic fascism" but then you're dealing with a fictitious, symbolic problem. I can't help you if you equate modern monetary theory with systematic ethnic cleansing. They are just different things

Your definition of socialism is wrong and your definition of fascism is VERY wrong. Try again.

>It's a huge generalization
It's an oversimplification. But there is something my generation, specifically people like you could learn from his line of thought: sometimes you have to make connections, not divisions. When it comes to the fascist Nazi movement of Germany, it was borne out of a worker's party movement. A lot of Fascism's popularity stemmed from Communism. This is a fact. An uncomfortable fact because it doesn't fit in with the 'system' of thought that people try to think in.

>your
You're

>But generally, socialism is wealth redistribution and government programs
Stop. Let me help you,

socialism has a generally very complex definition but I'll summarize it for you:

Where there is a struggle between the worker's utility gained from production and the producer's utility, socialism is the objective to maintain the utility gained by producers as close as possible to zero, maximizing the utility for the consumers.

> fascism is state controlled genocide
Uh... no? Italy was fascist too, remember. Same problems with their economy, that Hayek saw anyway.

Denmark is not socialism and neither is Canada. Please stop

Propaganda.

Attached: economist.png (684x418, 110K)

I feel as if there is almost a disconnect. Economics is more of a science and so is politics in a way.

I find very often those are, non-coincidentally, the two subjects this board doesn't understand the aim of. I see certain tropes repeated: like economics is supposed to 'predict' things yadda yadda, which it can, but is not the aim of economics.

Sometimes sciences are simply made to observe things as they are, or as they stand. Society can be vast and complex, and broadly speaking, there are certain principles and laws of behavior that humans follow no matter what when they are in a position of competitiveness. There are mathematical ways to express 'free will' and 'determinism' even, and they have to do with, unsurprisingly, the amount of personal gain they receive from the exchange or activity. It's not about treating people like robots, it's about logic.

I am :3

>changes every century
>constantly new theories
>doesn't work a lot of the time
Uh, user...

>fascism is state controlled genocide
>makes the most elementary mistake of confusing national socialism with fascism
Thank you for making your ignorance obvious. Opinion discarded.

>Denmark and Canada are socialist
Fuck off you stupid cunt. I bet you’re American.

It's because Austrian economics examines things based on the institutions existing. It's institutional analysis.

Hopefully technology advances to the point we don't need certain power supplies. I wouldn't want monopolies existing, but that would destroy part of Hayek's theory which states we need those monopolies to exist in order to live.

Just an example of the changing environment and technology invalidating the philosophy of an economist. Now imagine that x100000 because Ludwig ALWAYS examines things based on the actions of financial institutions.

Mises is a bit ridiculous. He says that you can only price something based on what its value had in the past, that because it has value in the past is what gives it value today. Absolutely ridiculous. If you take a more realistic approach, it's the utility it gives to all participants who desire/have the good that sets the price.

I hate Mises. I dislike Hayek actually because he overgeneralizes (as pointed out), but I definitely think Hayek is 10000000 times better than Mises.

:3

Plus 'Road to Serfdom' is a line taken from Tocqueville. Proving that Hayek was more of a political philosopher/scientist than an economist.

Mises reads like a damn politician though, and that is the difference right there. :3

≥:3
What is this avatarfagging nonsense?

So where were Salazar's concentration camps?

I'd just say that it's a soft science.
Based on the following criteria:
Based on social phenomena
Harder if not impossible to isolate variables
Difficult to falsify theories, sometimes are not falsifiable
Less replicable and less predictively valid (depends on the area of economics you look at, but overall it's less than those of the "hard sciences")

I'd say economics is much better than most of the other social sciences. If only because economists are mathematically competent. I'd also argue many of the assumptions about humans made in economics is wrong, but perhaps behavioral economics will fix that?

No.

So I think the whole mentality behind this post is incorrect. Hmmm see

You are exhibiting some of these false 'tropes' I see replicated on a daily basis here. More annoying than anything.

Look into what Game Theory is. Economics is based on observation solely sometimes, not even prediction. It can help you judge a situation though, even.

≥:3
rawr

All these criticisms are making the same straw man argument, so I must not have been clear enough. I was not defining socialism nor fascism. I am arguing that these terms have fluid, nonspecific definitions. They have never rigid technical meaning, so an actual conversation about them is bound to be meaningless, as we only recognize "socialism" or "fascism" by a series of features. I was reducing these terms to one of their most obvious features. Any government which participated in mass genocide would be labeled fascist, regardless of the rest of it's structure. The terms are useless, and come with all sorts of obvious false implications. Because Hayek primarily argues about "isms" in TRTS, he is speaking abstract nonsense, which has been abused by sophists since to create all sorts of false equivalencies.

>these terms have fluid, nonspecific definitions.

Moreso for fascism than socialism, which is why it's easy to draw a link from fascism to the military complex to a communist state for Hayek.

Socialism though? Yeah that's not vague at all. It has a COMPLEX definition, but it is a specific thing. See for my definition.

>Any government which participated in mass genocide would be labeled fascist
Genocide was performed by countless civilizations before the twentieth century. Fascism didn't exist untill the twentieth century. You are legitimately retarded.

Attached: truth.jpg (600x415, 125K)

I'm well aware of the distinction between positive and normative economics. I also know what game theory is.
I understand that "soft science" is a bit of a loaded and outdated term, was merely saying that if you had to judge economics the harshest you'd go is to say that it is a soft science.

Semantic arguments are annoying, but I feel that socialism is defined well enough that one could easily argue what is and isn't socialism. Also just because brainlets misuse a term doesn't mean you have to immediately toss it out.

See I literally do not see the argument for this.

Because most economics does not deal with any capitalist 'system' but the idea of 'exchange' in and of itself.

I don't understand how you could possibly stop an exchange from happening. You could even apply Game Theory to conversations. Some forms of mutually beneficial social exchanges happen in a conversation every single time you have one.

Honestly man, I mean 'exchanging things' is never going away. It's in the Bible. That sort of thing is eternal. As such, the findings in some areas of economics like the Lausanne school's utility curves or Game Theory's 'effective triangles', are applicable to social organization/cohesion in general. It has nothing to do with the government.

The idea that the government, or form of exchange, has any implication on social behavior en masse, could even be looked at in some form of delusion in and of itself.

All the change in the government from, say, capitalism to communism, does is change the objective of the government, and the producers of all goods and services consumed within the country. You don't change the objective realities of exchange, which will still happen individually within the civilization, if not physically, then emotionally.

:3

Even the definition of socialism is fluid. Back when socialist theory magazines were popular, one perceived weakness was that there was no fixed definition to the term. One socialist thinker (I can't remember who, I'm sorry) went so far as to say "socialism is whatever we desire." Even if there is a technical definition now, it's still true that when someone speaks about socialism, we have no idea what they are talking about. They could be conflating it with sovietism, or they could be talking about something as basic as public healthcare. Because of that, the term is useless, except as an adjective. A serious discussion about what socialism "is" or "what it must lead to" is literally nonsensical.
My apologies, when I said "would be labeled" I was exclusively referring to modern discourse if a modern government did those things. That was unclear. I still believe it would be the case, that if a modern government committed genocide, the media would call it fascist, and people would accept that use of the term.

Ehhhh, no I like the hard facts. If you disagree with the definition given in my post I would like to see the ARGUMENTS you have, otherwise don't even fucking BOTHER.

God your whole post sounds like a dipshit man. I mean honestly. I don't CARE what the leaders of the movements were even thinking, they were probably politicians anyway, those kinds of people don't actually give a FUCK about the theory.

Boy, I'm not talking about economist who write papers on exchange and shit. I'm taking about economists who use their status to justify the status quo. I have good reason to be sceptical about people when they say things are better than in the past while I everywhere I look it's the opposite.

>this

(in regards to politicians always talking about subjects they know nothing about and degrading them through their ignorance.)

I'm probably your fucking senior, kid.

See
For my opinion on the types of economists you are describing.

Here let me post the definition. You tell me what you disagree with.
>Where there is a struggle between the worker's utility gained from production and the producer's utility, socialism is the objective to maintain the utility gained by producers as close as possible to zero, maximizing the utility for the consumers.

>who don't give a FUCK about theory
I'm quoting theory, you dipshit
Also, I'm giving arguments, you're just not interested in my approach. Hayek's whole book is based off of generalizing socialism, so there's a huge lack of clarity around parts of his arguments, and this taints the reasoning of the whole book. You can't have a fully logical argument if your terms have multiple definitions, and it's unclear which ones you are using

His definition of Communism is closely aligned with the political movement which led to the tensions in the early 20th century. I don't believe he mentioned 'Socialism' in his book. Can you quote a page where he mentions it? I believe he only mentions Communism in reference to the Russia brand of Communism and the German brand of Communism.

I did a Google search. The word "socialism" appears 64 times in the prologue. He dedicated it "to all socialists everywhere."

Alright man, I was a little curious that's all.

Can you refute the definition I posted? Your 'approach' is to say there is no real definition to socialism and then to not even attempt to refute the definition I posted?

WTF :3

Nothing is socialism except radical worker ownership of the means of production in a worldwide revolution, but also anything is if I feel like it. Social democracy is socialism and not socialism depending on how convenient! Norway, not socialism. Venezuela, socialism. USSR, socialism. Nationalization, socialism - except if you're in an official not socialist country. Universal healthcare, socialism. Universal healthcare, not socialism. Why? Because.

t. successfully propagandized drone

>all these people ignoring the differences between “Normative” and “Positiive” economics

>Any government which participated in mass genocide would be labeled fascist, regardless of the rest of it's structure
Holy shit imagine believing this

Attached: E8BA4EEA-390E-4CE6-8F66-4C3936501A6B.jpg (300x300, 26K)

Yeah right, that's essentially the problem. They're ignoring that economics has a scientific side completely.

And it's a willing ignore as well. Like what the actual fuck is going on there? Why are people forcibly shutting out that economics can be a useful descriptor of situations or events?

What's up with that. Anyway, yeah, economics is certainly not a 'choice of philosophy' or whatever. Sometimes I suppose it can be, in a way that's a bit hidden as well. But most of the time, people who write books are good people. You know, they don't write books that are geared for a certain political side.

Just saying everyone, this is odd behavior and just because you don't understand a field doesn't mean you get the right to just dismiss it entirely.

This behavior should be directed to financial institutions, not an entire field which can be beneficially used to investigate properties of 'exchange' and social dynamics.

>they say things are better than in the past
They objectively are though. What’s your evidence to the contrary?
>everywhere I look it's the opposite
Ah, I see you’re a brainlet. Nevermind.

I'm not trying to refute your definition. That is a valid definition of the term. However, people use the term to describe a wide variety of political systems. Whether or not certain governments fall under your technical term, the moniker socialism is still used to describe a wide variety of systems. Talking about Socialism, abstractly, divorced from context, leads to a false equivalency between Canada and the USSR. So the term needs to be put in context so that other people know what you're talking about. There is useful discussion about socialism, I might've misstated that earlier, but Hayek's book falls outside of what is useful, because his discussion about socialism is too abstract, and when he makes propositions about what "socialism will ultimately lead to" he is inadvertently creating a false equivalency between unrelated systems of government.

So I'm not refuting you, but I am sorta going around you

No one is ever calling Canada socialist. Because they aren't, okay?

Everyone made fun of you ITT because you're an idiot, sorry man. Just read more. Thanks for the discussion though.

Attached: Screenshot.jpg (800x494, 61K)

>Canada
By no stretch of the imagination can Canada be considered “socialist”

It's a shitposter who goes out of his way to reply to a tripfag/addresses the tripfag in 90% of his posts because he's mentally ill

Oh stop, Butterfly has admitted she's not doing anything with anyone you fucking jealous retard.

>she

>Nobody calls Canada socialist
I've seen people do it. People will do crazy things like that.
I wouldn't call Canada socialist, nor would I call the Soviet Union socialist, but the label is attached to both countries by various groups. If I don't know someone, and I don't have proper context, how am I supposed to know what they mean?

>nor would I call the Soviet Union socialist

Attached: 9B1A7BE4-FA19-4DFB-B955-F8DA7D030211.jpg (903x960, 52K)

Haha, what the fuck man. You are fucking stupid

:3

Why would you NOT call the Soviet Union socialist?

just because a man fucks men doesn't mean he's gay

theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/07/the-triumph-of-canadian-socialism/259924/

google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WO4MGhzATVA&ved=2ahUKEwiAr4uVhs_hAhXxYd8KHVnKDxQQwqsBMAF6BAgHEAU&usg=AOvVaw0RU1so-Jp7M75wd6MM9OMz

Look at all this shitty discourse about socialism. I told you people will use the term to describe anything. These aren't even fringe sources. Actual people believe them, and use the terms in this way. Still think talking about abstract socialism isn't inherently vague and misleading?

Goddamn I wish I didn't drink all that coffee. I feel like I could talk about descriptive linguistics for hours. Might reread some saussure. This is actually helping me write a paper.

>dumbass newspapers say something is socialist so it must be
We all know news sources overuse the term, that's a common complaint. See the thing I said about politicians, man.

Point is, we all know these people are fucking retarded as well. We are simply drawing attention to the fact that there is actually a strict definition for things and we at least would like to keep and maintain a semblance of that definition. As far as we are concerned Canada is not socialist.

The world can fucking burn in idiocy for all we care :3

Yeah it's good. But Yea Forums is full of commies and fascists, so expect them to shit on it.

Not him. But "socialism" has an actual definition. The Soviet Union was socialist for a hot minute and then it degenerated into state capitalism, just like china. They didn't manage to establish it, the economy instantly went down the shitter.

A lot of states run by marxists TRY to establish socialism, but they never manage to do it.

People say communism is impossible to establish, but you don't even have to go that far down the marxist rabbit hole, it appears socialism is already impossible to establish.

I don't think pessimism is the right strategy to approach. The media abusing the term is something that should be taken into account when discussing it. I think that's been the source of a lot of miscommunication here. I think if enough people misuse a term, then it loses meaning. Issues then need to be discussed using different terms. Often regular people actually trust the media, and they use loaded nondescript terms and they think they're saying something helpful and constructive. Rephrasing things helps people apply their actual values to the situation

>The media abusing the term is something that should be taken into account when discussing it.
Why? I would rather not even discuss what many people do these days at all. Why does any of it concern me?

:3

if there's still confusion about the popular use of the word socialism it's when a government collects taxes and uses them to build roads, dams, bridges, hospitals, libraries, hiring cops, firefighters, soldiers etc. if you want to talk to someone about socialism you better present your definition and specific aspect you wish to discuss 'cause they're not going to have any idea what you're talking about.

>Why
I don't know, why does anyone want to communicate anything ever? These days, you just never know how stupid someone is, so all you can do is hope your own words make sense and that they can follow what you're saying. They fucking media makes it hard sometimes.

>State capitalism
Fuck off you rad-lib. Go read fucking Marx and Lenin + history of the USSR.
I used to say the same shit btw.

Attached: 22e.jpg (963x682, 168K)

What do you want to call it, it wasn't socialism.

Agreed man. I wouldn't put too much heart in the media. They've always been a political force, but since the invention of the internet it's not as necessary anymore.

This particular medium is very useful, without it we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, among other purposes this serves. Clearly you can see some use this interface in other ways it was intended. :3

But that's part of being human: to be creative.

Why not? It certainly wasn't capitalism. There was some Capitalist elements but the private share of the economy was like 20% in 50s and by 60s it was 10%.
The only vague characteristics of capitalism in soviet socialism was that you were payed a wage.

Socialism is the social ownership of the means of production, with wages proportional to ones contribution. The role of the state is the allocation of resources under centralized control of the economy, according to efficiency and necessity rather than profit motives.

The end goal is the withering away of the state for the purpose of transition to communism. A state-less class-less society where everyone gets what he needs rather than what he earns.

>It certainly wasn't capitalism
The closest thing to socialism was the "War Communism" period with the complete nationalization of industry, banning of private enterprise, complete control of foreign trade and centralized distribution of agricultural production and construction material.

This system was abandoned by Lenin due to the economy tanking hard. He introduced the New Economic Policy with "a free market and capitalism, both subject to state control", while socialized state enterprises operating on "a profit basis".

Source: Lenin, V.I. "The Role and Functions of the Trade Unions under the New Economic Policy" in Lenin's collected works.

>Socialism is the social ownership of the means of production, with wages proportional to ones contribution. The role of the state is the allocation of resources under centralized control of the economy, according to efficiency and necessity rather than profit motives.
And all of those things happened under USSR.
>The end goal is the withering away of the state for the purpose of transition to communism. A state-less class-less society where everyone gets what he needs rather than what he earns.
True, but the industry wasn't developed enough for that, neither is it possible when there are nuclear armheads pointed at you from the west.
>This system was abandoned by Lenin due to the economy tanking hard. He introduced the New Economic Policy with "a free market and capitalism, both subject to state control", while socialized state enterprises operating on "a profit basis".
Yeah but the NEP ended in the 20s and was used to rebuild after the war. From that point on towards the 80s it was socialist. Or in other words you know jack shit and simply picked a text from Marxist.org.

Stalin collectivized agricultural production, which led to wide spread famines.

He also industrialized the union. The factories and mines were run like corporations. Workers' control over industry was removed, with factory managers increasing their authority and receiving privileges and perks.

Khrushchev then already reintroduced foreign trade to some degree. The 1965 Soviet economic reform under Kosygin reintroduced profitability and sales as the two key indicators of enterprise success.

>Stalin collectivized agricultural production, which led to wide spread famines.
And ended the NEP which greatly diminished the percentage of private enterprise.
>Workers' control over industry was removed, with factory managers increasing their authority and receiving privileges and perks.

This is simply untrue. To quote an anti-soviet but not really anti socialist historian
"On paper, enterprise managers had all the power, but in practice with a labor shortage and a tradition of almost never firing workers, managers had to take account of workers wishes." Page 26 of Russia's path from Gorbachev to Putin.

Of course the labor "shortage" was caused by an socialist economy which has close to an 100% employment.

>with factory managers increasing their authority and receiving privileges and perks.
This is true but it's nothing to wealth inequality in capitalist economies.

>Khrushchev then already reintroduced foreign trade to some degree. The 1965 Soviet economic reform under Kosygin reintroduced profitability and sales as the two key indicators of enterprise success.
And? the profits were never the main way to see if an enterprise was successful. Maybe in late 80s they were. I'm not aware of they were exactly those but Khrushchev reforms were reverted since they caused chaos in planning.

If you have private enterprises then you don't have socialism

That's just stupid. We have co-op's under capitalism so it means we have socialism? I mean a great portion of america economy in the past was composed of slavery, was that not true capitalism? The legal private enterprises were only like 10% of the economy and diminishing after 60s.

Capitalism is not defined as "every enterprise needs to be private".
While Socialism IS defined as "collective ownership of the means of production"

You can have nationalized enterprises and cooperations in a wider capitalist economy and still have capitalism. But you can't have private ownership in socialism and still have it be socialism.
You seem to think there is only capitalism and socialism and when something isn't the one then it must automatically be the other. That's not how it works.

Socialism is an ideological construct. What is considered "capitalism" in general developed naturally and wasn't an ideological end goal as marxist socialism is. Hence it is more loosely defined. People just did what was profitable and stable enough to stay around. There were no grand scheming capitalist theorists who designed the system from the top-down. At least not until the liberal economists came around and formalized and promoted the patterns that worked, such as the concept of free markets and free competition.

I don't deny that there were many want-to-be socialist states and some arguably even became socialist temporarily. Or at least they came close. But there was never a stable socialist country as per definition. They always reintroduced profit motives and free market forces (i.e. aspects of the dreaded capitalism) to keep it from collapsing or they never fully gave up on them in the first place.

>While Socialism IS defined as "collective ownership of the means of production"

By Wikipedia

>But you can't have private ownership in socialism and still have it be socialism.

If those private companies are maintained for the benefits of the workers exclusively, why does 'ownership' matter?

There is actually a very technical reason why I prefer the definition I gave earlier, so I'd like to hear why you think ownership matters. As long as the private enterprises are being maintained for the maximum utility of the citizens in the economy, then I just don't see why the ownership of the private enterprises is important.

:3

I have to leave now, but keep this post in mind. I've been monitoring this discussion but this was the point I found most important to differ on.

You are just dumb.

Attached: gigachad.jpg (735x884, 48K)

And you're a homosexual

Not really a book on economics though.

These exchanges are predicated upon contracts, i.e someone promises to do something for pay(work), promises to give something upon being the recipent something else(instead of just stealing or walking away with the money) and all these contracts need to be enforced by threat of violence or carnal neglect, i.e the state.

>the USSR wasn’t socialism
It was.

The NEP was reverted by Stalin you dunce.

The workers didn't control the means of production. It was state centralized capitalism. You can call it a mixed economy at most. I suppose you think France is socialist

Again I ask, FOR WHAT? Reverted to WHAT?

Wouldn't go that far but economics in the way it is currently is pretty much a joke yeah.

Based and 16 year old debated pilled.

I can sort of see why your brain worms infested brain could think Denmark is socialist but Canada? What the hell kind of liberal propaganda are you on?

tits or GTFO

>Like what the actual fuck is going on there? Why are people forcibly shutting out that economics can be a useful descriptor of situations or events?
because shitting on adam smith and mises and hayek is easier than learning about philips curves and cobb-douglas functions or anything eve slightly more difficult than what is essentially political theory

>Any government which participated in mass genocide would be labeled fascist, regardless of the rest of it's structure.
What the FUCK sort of ideologue

>Reverted to WHAT?
To collectivization.
>you think France is socialist
No, I don't.
>The workers didn't control the means of production
This is the same spiel socialists always fall back to. Funny thing is both the USSR and China (when it was implementing the danwei system) tried to substitute managers with workers at different points in their history and they both had to back down from it because it just LITERALLY didn't work, no matter how hard they tried.

I will concede the USSR had a more top-down, "technocratic" system than China did during the Mao years, but the point stands regardless.

>Collectivism
What a dishonest answer.
>tried to substitute managers with workers
How odd that it does work in capitalist and anarchist settings. You're probably reading propaganda.

The point of anarchism is to challenge all unjustifiable hierarchies. If a given company needs a supervisor or director (filmmaking certainly) for its projects, you'd naturally allow for them. Perhaps even elect them, testing who has the knack for it

Attached: Stalin has you surrounded.jpg (550x602, 53K)

agreed. You should just read chapters 1 and 2 of Kaczynski's "Anti-Tech Revolution" which articulates all Hayek's most important points far better, and with FAR fewer pages.

No. Money-schooling is hokum.

>What a dishonest answer.
It's literally true, you retarded mongoloid.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union#Crisis_of_1928
>How odd that it does work in capitalist and anarchist settings.
What the fuck are you even talking about?
>You're probably reading propaganda.
>Dismissing facts as propaganda.
This just proves what I've suspected all along: You're a fool who chooses to bury your head in the sand when facts don't match your preconceived view of the world. Kill yourself.

>kolkhozy and sovkhozy
Thanks. I do need an honest history book on this era.
>Continues with dishonesty
Hm.

Attached: Voline - Unknown Revolution.jpg (710x1024, 136K)