I explain Mises' impossibility thesis of socialism, i.e. the economic calculation problem, and why it makes a "socialist economy" strictly impossible.Join th...
The very notion that antisocialist intellectuals can present unsolvable problems to the lower classes is ridiculous. The tide of history isn’t going to grind to a halt and millions of workers aren’t going to suddenly make peace with their bosses or return to capitalism because an antisocialist supposedly discovered a ‘loophole’ in the concept of planned economics.
‘Oh my G‐d! I can’t figure out how much this product should cost! Oh no, what do we do, what do we do‽’
Like all brilliant capitalist economists, much of his theory is based on begging the question, like assuming that only one socialist can or will decide how to distribute resources, and that capitalists assign product prices ‘based on how much people will pay for them’. (Heh.) And notice how heavily he relies on hypotheticals (barring a clip of another antisocialist discussing planning in the Soviet Union). While technically overuse of hypotheticals does not invalidate an argument, it is far less impressive than reliance on real examples.
The most uncomfortable moments for me were when he agreed with the classic oversimplification of democracy as ‘mob rule’ and when he attacked the idea of minimum wages, but neither of those is surprising coming from somebody who admires Vaterländische member № 282632 so much. Anyway, I know that this is a woefully inadequate response, but to be honest I would rather be doing something else. Maybe @aspensmonster@lemmygrad.ml can try—if our comrade is feeling algophilic enough.
I think that what truly invalidates anti-socialists is that they project their utopianism because they have not read a single line of Marx or anyone for the matter and simply don’t know that modern socialism is anti-utopian and therefore argue for long terme transition rather than making up a bunch of cool laws and see them clash with reality.
They’re always asking people of their time if Le Socialism has figured out this specific edge case and the best response is simply “no one can know that. After the revolution, this will be managed just like before, until people figure out how to run it differently. The revolution means that the proletariat gains political power, not that the bourgeoisie will suddenly be buried with all their knowledge of the supply chain”
The very notion that antisocialist intellectuals can present unsolvable problems to the lower classes is ridiculous. The tide of history isn’t going to grind to a halt and millions of workers aren’t going to suddenly make peace with their bosses or return to capitalism because an antisocialist supposedly discovered a ‘loophole’ in the concept of planned economics.
‘Oh my G‐d! I can’t figure out how much this product should cost! Oh no, what do we do, what do we do‽’
Like all brilliant capitalist economists, much of his theory is based on begging the question, like assuming that only one socialist can or will decide how to distribute resources, and that capitalists assign product prices ‘based on how much people will pay for them’. (Heh.) And notice how heavily he relies on hypotheticals (barring a clip of another antisocialist discussing planning in the Soviet Union). While technically overuse of hypotheticals does not invalidate an argument, it is far less impressive than reliance on real examples.
The most uncomfortable moments for me were when he agreed with the classic oversimplification of democracy as ‘mob rule’ and when he attacked the idea of minimum wages, but neither of those is surprising coming from somebody who admires Vaterländische member № 282632 so much. Anyway, I know that this is a woefully inadequate response, but to be honest I would rather be doing something else. Maybe @aspensmonster@lemmygrad.ml can try—if our comrade is feeling algophilic enough.
I think that what truly invalidates anti-socialists is that they project their utopianism because they have not read a single line of Marx or anyone for the matter and simply don’t know that modern socialism is anti-utopian and therefore argue for long terme transition rather than making up a bunch of cool laws and see them clash with reality.
They’re always asking people of their time if Le Socialism has figured out this specific edge case and the best response is simply “no one can know that. After the revolution, this will be managed just like before, until people figure out how to run it differently. The revolution means that the proletariat gains political power, not that the bourgeoisie will suddenly be buried with all their knowledge of the supply chain”