Philosophy of Freedom

Kimberly Cox59 said:So, we've got an anarchist here who’s actually pushing for a social welfare state as the big alternative to libertarianism. That's interesting, I guess. Personally, if it were up to me, I’d get rid of the government entirely, but probably through a different route with totally different outcomes. But hey, if you're forcing my hand and making me pick between "anarcho"-capitalism and some kind of social welfare model—like what you see in Scandinavia or just a general social safety net—I don't really have a dilemma. I'm fine either way, maybe.

Honestly, I think the anarcho-capitalists are the biggest joke of all. They just don't seem to get that capitalism... well, you know. It’s kind of wild, really. Always. It all just leads straight to injustice and those rigid hierarchies we see everywhere, which is basically the polar opposite of anarchy. I guess that’s just how it works, maybe?

Here we go again—another "anarchist" out here pushing for state solutions. I guess it’s funny how that works. To me, it seems like the whole socialist philosophy you're peddling—and honestly, I call anyone who wants to redistribute wealth based on some imaginary "social" metric a socialist—is basically built on this one idea: it's better for everyone to be equally miserable than to have any inequality when it comes to freedom. Maybe that's just how you see it, though.

What kind of freedom are we even talking about? I just don't see it. I mean, take a worker in India making shoes on an assembly line—they don't have any real freedom at all. And honestly, I guess workers in the US aren't much better off either, since their whole lives basically depend on whether their boss decides to be kind or not.

I honestly think socialism always ends up lifting the standard of living for most people. And please, let’s not even get started on North Korea—that’s just not what socialism is about at all.

If you had actually looked into this issue, you might have realized that if we're talking about China—which I assume is the main reason you're so obsessed with "Asia"—this place was basically a massive, unindustrialized rural wasteland just fifty years ago. Like, seriously, 90% of the people were just poor farmers living off whatever they could scrape together from the dirt, with absolutely zero chance of ever escaping that poverty. Communism pretty much wiped them out during those insane Maoist "Great Leaps Forward." It wasn't until a little bit of free enterprise managed to sneak its way into that massive country that things actually started moving forward in a big way. For instance, there’s this one super famous case from the late seventies that really shows how crazy socialism and planned economies can be—it almost completely destroyed China:
I was just reading this piece from NPR about how much the landscape in China has shifted over the years. It’s pretty wild to think about, honestly. You look at how they've handled their economic growth and it really makes you wonder about the sheer scale of the transformation. I guess it’s one of those things where you realize just how fast a massive economy can pivot when the direction changes. Maybe it's just me, but seeing that kind of shift—it's almost hard to wrap your head around. Just a lot to process, I suppose.

That’s an interesting point. Look, I’m definitely not trying to defend Maoism—that stuff is pure evil, plain and simple. But, I guess you could look at it this way... here's an example of something that actually worked. Voluntary. I mean, maybe that's just how things work sometimes? It feels like everything is becoming so much more... well, organized lately. But yeah, voluntary. I guess. Well, you also have those instances of collectivization that actually ended up driving production through the roof and really bumping up the standard of living. I guess it happened sometimes, maybe? It’s interesting how that works out.
I was just reading through this deep dive on how various revolutions actually play out, and man, it really makes you think about the cycle of things. It’s easy to get swept up in the excitement of a big uprising, but looking at history, there's always that messy transition period where everything feels like it's spinning out of control. I guess it's one of those things where the initial spark is easy, but keeping the momentum without falling into total chaos is the hard part. Maybe that's why so many movements end up looking exactly like what they were trying to overthrow in the first place? It’s a bit heavy, I know, but honestly, it’s pretty fascinating to see how these patterns repeat themselves over and over again.

I guess the modern Chinese person is actually making massive strides precisely because of how much free market they have, not despite it. It’s kind of wild when you think about it. I’d really suggest checking out this TED talk if you want to start seeing how those "exploited" workers have actually come out on top. Honestly, they seem way happier today than their parents were just twenty or thirty years ago.

So, I was just checking out this TED talk by Leslie Mitcheson about how we handle workers and productivity, and man, it really gets you thinking. It’s one of those things that seems simple on the surface, but once you dig in, there's so much more going on. I guess she's looking at how we structure everything in the workplace. Maybe it's just me, but it feels like such a huge part of our daily lives, right? You know, how we spend most of our waking hours just trying to stay ahead of the curve. Anyway, it's definitely worth a watch if you have a few minutes to spare. Just some food for thought!

Well, he's more or less saying that people are actually volunteering to come work for the city. And I mean, yeah, that’s true, obviously. But they aren't exactly heading over there just so they can...They picked up some new skills and really got out there to see the world.But honestly, how would they even make enough to actually live? Most of them are still stuck in poverty, I guess.

Nah, I think the other way to go is just being self-employed. In a truly free society—one that isn't constantly squeezing its citizens just to fund some massive social welfare programs—where taxes on small business owners and entrepreneurs are kept at a minimum or maybe even nonexistent, things change. If you can take a hobby or something you're actually talented at and turn it into your own little venture, I guess that’s just a way better move. It's probably a much more profitable option than just sitting around the house, complaining about how there are no jobs out there.

So, what happens next? You go out and start a small business, only to watch it tank because you're getting crushed by massive corporations. It’s the same story we saw with local watchmakers, tailors, and all those other small shops that just couldn't hang. Even the mid-sized factories are struggling to stay competitive these days. So, if I'm following your logic, people are supposed to just keep pouring their hard-earned cash—where would they even get that money, I guess?—into tiny startups that will probably fail 90% of the time anyway? It just doesn't seem to add up.

I mean, sure, some fields really do require you to go through the motions at a specialized university. But for most everyday jobs? I guess you don't necessarily need a fancy degree. Think about things like retail, accounting, construction, or even all those various trades. Even more technical stuff, like computer science and its cousins—you can pretty much tackle that on your own. Honestly, having a membership at your local public library and just a tiny bit of willpower and ambition to learn something new is probably enough. Maybe that's all it takes, really.

I mean, seriously, how is some kid out there—someone who’s actually got tons of potential but zero dollars in their pocket—supposed to go after a degree in the sciences or social studies if they can't afford tuition? And please, don't give me that "just go to the library" line... I guess it's just not that simple.

I guess that’s just another thing about libertarianism. It kind of leads to this spiritual emptiness, you know? Since everyone is just hyper-focused on chasing the next dollar, there isn't much room left for anything else.

I mean, you're totally mixing up your terms here—and I bet you're doing it on purpose, too. Look, the world we’re living in right now isn't some free-for-all of laissez-faire or pure entrepreneurship. It's actually dominated by corporatism, or maybe neo-mercantilism if you want to get technical. It’s all about markets that are centrally controlled and partially managed by big players. Just my two cents, I guess.

I get that, but honestly, I don't think a pure laissez-faire approach would be any better. Right now, it seems like the wealthy prefer corporatism because the government provides them with a certain level of security. Just look at China—it’s basically just total cooperation between big business and the state, where the party manages any social unrest using funds provided by the industrialists.

Look, I guess it’s just a statistical fact that when you look at the entire history of the human race, despite all the massive headaches we deal with today, things are actually... well, different. Maybe they're just feeling less hungry? I guess. Or maybe they're just more satisfied. It's hard to say, really....fewer wars, at the very least. Less sickness, less illiteracy. I guess that’s really all we can aim for, right? Maybe just keeping things simple like that.And, you know, at the very least, we're looking at political inequality.

I guess you could say those socialist systems are largely to blame for how things turned out...

I honestly think we’re living in the most peaceful and prosperous era since humans first crawled out of their caves. It’s pretty wild when you think about it. And look, regardless of how you personally feel about all that, the statistics really tell a story. They show this massive upward surge that lines up perfectly with the start of industrialization and the rise of capitalist—or even quasi-capitalist—ways of running an economy. I guess the numbers don't lie.

It obviously aligns with industrialization—I mean, how could it not? 😕
Also, I wouldn't bother making comparisons to the pre-industrial era.

And hey, driftingjackal5, how would the justice system actually work in "anarcho"-capitalism?

Personally, I'm not even asking you to prove that "always" part. What I'm really looking for is just one single, concrete example of a country that has practiced socialism for a long stretch of time—say, half a century—and managed to prosper just as well as the capitalist nations surrounding it.

Kimberly Cox59 said:So, we've got an anarchist here who’s actually pushing for a social welfare state as the big alternative to libertarianism. That's interesting, I guess. Personally, if it were up to me, I’d get rid of the government entirely, but probably through a different route with totally different outcomes. But hey, if you're forcing my hand and making me pick between "anarcho"-capitalism and some kind of social welfare model—like what you see in Scandinavia or just a general social safety net—I don't really have a dilemma. I'm fine either way, maybe.

Honestly, I think the anarcho-capitalists are the biggest joke of all. They just don't seem to get that capitalism... well, you know. It’s kind of wild, really. Always. It all just leads straight to injustice and those rigid hierarchies we see everywhere, which is basically the polar opposite of anarchy. I guess that’s just how it works, maybe?

Here we go again—another "anarchist" out here pushing for state solutions. I guess it’s funny how that works. To me, it seems like the whole socialist philosophy you're peddling—and honestly, I call anyone who wants to redistribute wealth based on some imaginary "social" metric a socialist—is basically built on this one idea: it's better for everyone to be equally miserable than to have any inequality when it comes to freedom. Maybe that's just how you see it, though.

What kind of freedom are we even talking about? I just don't see it. I mean, take a worker in India making shoes on an assembly line—they don't have any real freedom at all. And honestly, I guess workers in the US aren't much better off either, since their whole lives basically depend on whether their boss decides to be kind or not.

I honestly think socialism always ends up lifting the standard of living for most people. And please, let’s not even get started on North Korea—that’s just not what socialism is about at all.

If you had actually looked into this issue, you might have realized that if we're talking about China—which I assume is the main reason you're so obsessed with "Asia"—this place was basically a massive, unindustrialized rural wasteland just fifty years ago. Like, seriously, 90% of the people were just poor farmers living off whatever they could scrape together from the dirt, with absolutely zero chance of ever escaping that poverty. Communism pretty much wiped them out during those insane Maoist "Great Leaps Forward." It wasn't until a little bit of free enterprise managed to sneak its way into that massive country that things actually started moving forward in a big way. For instance, there’s this one super famous case from the late seventies that really shows how crazy socialism and planned economies can be—it almost completely destroyed China:
I was just reading this piece from NPR about how much the landscape in China has shifted over the years. It’s pretty wild to think about, honestly. You look at how they've handled their economic growth and it really makes you wonder about the sheer scale of the transformation. I guess it’s one of those things where you realize just how fast a massive economy can pivot when the direction changes. Maybe it's just me, but seeing that kind of shift—it's almost hard to wrap your head around. Just a lot to process, I suppose.

That’s an interesting point. Look, I’m definitely not trying to defend Maoism—that stuff is pure evil, plain and simple. But, I guess you could look at it this way... here's an example of something that actually worked. Voluntary. I mean, maybe that's just how things work sometimes? It feels like everything is becoming so much more... well, organized lately. But yeah, voluntary. I guess. Well, you also have those instances of collectivization that actually ended up driving production through the roof and really bumping up the standard of living. I guess it happened sometimes, maybe? It’s interesting how that works out.
I was just reading through this deep dive on how various revolutions actually play out, and man, it really makes you think about the cycle of things. It’s easy to get swept up in the excitement of a big uprising, but looking at history, there's always that messy transition period where everything feels like it's spinning out of control. I guess it's one of those things where the initial spark is easy, but keeping the momentum without falling into total chaos is the hard part. Maybe that's why so many movements end up looking exactly like what they were trying to overthrow in the first place? It’s a bit heavy, I know, but honestly, it’s pretty fascinating to see how these patterns repeat themselves over and over again.

I guess the modern Chinese person is actually making massive strides precisely because of how much free market they have, not despite it. It’s kind of wild when you think about it. I’d really suggest checking out this TED talk if you want to start seeing how those "exploited" workers have actually come out on top. Honestly, they seem way happier today than their parents were just twenty or thirty years ago.

So, I was just checking out this TED talk by Leslie Mitcheson about how we handle workers and productivity, and man, it really gets you thinking. It’s one of those things that seems simple on the surface, but once you dig in, there's so much more going on. I guess she's looking at how we structure everything in the workplace. Maybe it's just me, but it feels like such a huge part of our daily lives, right? You know, how we spend most of our waking hours just trying to stay ahead of the curve. Anyway, it's definitely worth a watch if you have a few minutes to spare. Just some food for thought!

Well, he's more or less saying that people are actually volunteering to come work for the city. And I mean, yeah, that’s true, obviously. But they aren't exactly heading over there just so they can...They picked up some new skills and really got out there to see the world.But honestly, how would they even make enough to actually live? Most of them are still stuck in poverty, I guess.

Nah, I think the other way to go is just being self-employed. In a truly free society—one that isn't constantly squeezing its citizens just to fund some massive social welfare programs—where taxes on small business owners and entrepreneurs are kept at a minimum or maybe even nonexistent, things change. If you can take a hobby or something you're actually talented at and turn it into your own little venture, I guess that’s just a way better move. It's probably a much more profitable option than just sitting around the house, complaining about how there are no jobs out there.

So, what happens next? You go out and start a small business, only to watch it tank because you're getting crushed by massive corporations. It’s the same story we saw with local watchmakers, tailors, and all those other small shops that just couldn't hang. Even the mid-sized factories are struggling to stay competitive these days. So, if I'm following your logic, people are supposed to just keep pouring their hard-earned cash—where would they even get that money, I guess?—into tiny startups that will probably fail 90% of the time anyway? It just doesn't seem to add up.

I mean, sure, some fields really do require you to go through the motions at a specialized university. But for most everyday jobs? I guess you don't necessarily need a fancy degree. Think about things like retail, accounting, construction, or even all those various trades. Even more technical stuff, like computer science and its cousins—you can pretty much tackle that on your own. Honestly, having a membership at your local public library and just a tiny bit of willpower and ambition to learn something new is probably enough. Maybe that's all it takes, really.

I mean, seriously, how is some kid out there—someone who’s actually got tons of potential but zero dollars in their pocket—supposed to go after a degree in the sciences or social studies if they can't afford tuition? And please, don't give me that "just go to the library" line... I guess it's just not that simple.

I guess that’s just another thing about libertarianism. It kind of leads to this spiritual emptiness, you know? Since everyone is just hyper-focused on chasing the next dollar, there isn't much room left for anything else.

I mean, you're totally mixing up your terms here—and I bet you're doing it on purpose, too. Look, the world we’re living in right now isn't some free-for-all of laissez-faire or pure entrepreneurship. It's actually dominated by corporatism, or maybe neo-mercantilism if you want to get technical. It’s all about markets that are centrally controlled and partially managed by big players. Just my two cents, I guess.

I get that, but honestly, I don't think a pure laissez-faire approach would be any better. Right now, it seems like the wealthy prefer corporatism because the government provides them with a certain level of security. Just look at China—it’s basically just total cooperation between big business and the state, where the party manages any social unrest using funds provided by the industrialists.

Look, I guess it’s just a statistical fact that when you look at the entire history of the human race, despite all the massive headaches we deal with today, things are actually... well, different. Maybe they're just feeling less hungry? I guess. Or maybe they're just more satisfied. It's hard to say, really....fewer wars, at the very least. Less sickness, less illiteracy. I guess that’s really all we can aim for, right? Maybe just keeping things simple like that.And, you know, at the very least, we're looking at political inequality.

I guess you could say those socialist systems are largely to blame for how things turned out...

I honestly think we’re living in the most peaceful and prosperous era since humans first crawled out of their caves. It’s pretty wild when you think about it. And look, regardless of how you personally feel about all that, the statistics really tell a story. They show this massive upward surge that lines up perfectly with the start of industrialization and the rise of capitalist—or even quasi-capitalist—ways of running an economy. I guess the numbers don't lie.

It obviously aligns with industrialization—I mean, how could it not? 😕
Also, I wouldn't bother making comparisons to the pre-industrial era.

And hey, driftingjackal5, how would the justice system actually work in "anarcho"-capitalism?

This tired narrative about the poor Indian or the poor Chinese person always resurfaces, implying that capitalism is responsible for their poverty. That's a lie. The West didn't cause poverty in India; India was impoverished long before they started working with the West. In fact, since cooperating with Western markets, both China and India have experienced massive growth and live better than ever before.

Ryan Nelson5 said:This tired narrative about the poor Indian or the poor Chinese person always resurfaces, implying that capitalism is responsible for their poverty. That's a lie. The West didn't cause poverty in India; India was impoverished long before they started working with the West. In fact, since cooperating with Western markets, both China and India have experienced massive growth and live better than ever before.

Exactly. Just look at what capitalism actually did for China:

http://data.worldbank.org/sites/defa...at_1_a_day.gif

We went from 60% of the population living in extreme poverty—which, by the way, was the result of a closed, state-planned economy—to just 15%, all within 20 to 30 years of China opening up to the West.

Freedom only really makes sense when it exists within a framework of liberty—you know, inside a society that actually has its own rules, laws, and a shared sense of morality... otherwise, you aren't looking at freedom, you're just looking at anarchy...

Polybius once pointed out:

You can't call a country democratic if the masses have the right to do whatever they feel like doing and actually intend to follow through... but in places where people traditionally honor the gods, respect their parents, show deference to their elders, and follow the law—those kinds of countries, provided the will of the majority remains supreme, can truly be called democracies.

When you look at China, don't act like private business and capitalism just sneaked in through the back door. It was a massive, deliberate takeover, totally micromanaged by the Communist Party. This whole shift kicked off in the late '70s right after they wiped out that four-member gang—you know, the ones including Mao's widow who wanted to stick to that radical Bolshevik nonsense back in '76. They basically followed the path America tried taking in the '60s, but those reforms got choked out in the early '70s, leaving us stuck in a total fake system.

The modern Chinese person really nails that old-school pragmatism and flexible leadership. It’s that perfect mix of solid planning and raw initiative—real Yin and Yang energy right there. 🙂 It’s actually pretty impressive how this one unified country always manages to rebuild itself after a crisis, unlike much of the West—including parts of the Middle East. Even now, the Communist Party calls the shots, with their version of Congress picking new leaders on ten-year cycles. They run on five-year plans, like the thirteenth one happening right now, but they stay flexible, kind of like how we do things here in the States. The government basically steers all the investment; they have a massive hand in the economy. Sure, the Party is central, but anyone can join—just like how, historically, talented kids from even the poorest families could climb the ranks to become high-level officials. They seem to keep some standards too; it's not just about being loyal to the party, you actually have to be smart and work hard. Twenty years ago, right after the Berlin Wall fell, nobody thought it was possible to mash a killer capitalist economy together with a communist political system. But hey, it works. They've had thirty years of insane growth—I remember reading back in the late '90s that the system was "overheating" and bound to slow down, but they’ve already blown past India, which is usually the benchmark. And they're actually pivoting when they need to, like finally tackling the massive environmental destruction they caused or leaning into renewables. Just goes to show they can adapt. Who survives the next thirty years? We'll see. 🙂 I'm definitely not touching any predictions with a ten-foot pole.

Look, China isn't some slam dunk argument for libertarianism or that whole "neoliberal economy" thing. It’s more like proof that capitalism is incredibly flexible—it can play nice with pretty much any political setup, whether it's a democracy, a dictatorship, a fascist regime, or even this current communist vibe. Just look at the US, Vietnam, or Mongolia; they're all basically following a similar playbook.

People aren't actually capable of living autonomously in freedom. There needs to be some kind of guarantor for it, and that role ought to belong to the state. Freedom is little more than an illusion.
I’m convinced a significant portion of people would gladly sell their own freedom if slavery wasn't illegal. But to outlaw slavery, you first have to restrict someone's freedom to sell themselves. Therefore, limiting liberty is a necessity, and that requires a state presence.

Ah, yes, 21st-century human capitalism, featuring the widest wealth gap in history 🙄

Of course this is nonsense. The lower classes have never lived better than they do today. That's just a fact. Go back a hundred years and look at how the poor actually lived compared to how they live now...

It’s wild to think that just a century ago, people didn't have even the basics, yet today we actually possess everything required to provide a comfortable life for EVERYONE on the planet. And what are we doing with that advantage? We’re just sitting here letting tyrants run the whole show.

Jack Smith5 said:It’s wild to think that just a century ago, people didn't have even the basics, yet today we actually possess everything required to provide a comfortable life for EVERYONE on the planet. And what are we doing with that advantage? We’re just sitting here letting tyrants run the whole show.

Who exactly has enough to provide a comfortable life for everyone? Who am I supposed to get money from? Bill Gates? And based on what logic?
No thanks, I'll handle my own finances. As soon as I hear some hype about there being enough money for "everyone on Earth," I know exactly what that implies. I have no interest in being part of that. What I earn, I want to keep for myself and my family.
The reality is that a huge chunk of that wealth would just be "wasted" if you tried to redistribute it to everyone, because 99% of people wouldn't know how to manage the money they received. Within a few years, you'd just end up back where you started—with massive inequality and those "who rule over everyone."
They're just more capable...

And what exactly does "redistributing wealth" even mean in practice?
How on earth is someone starving in Africa supposed to benefit if you take away my plasma donations and my refrigerator?

People need an education, not just a handout.

William Anderson5 said:People aren't actually capable of living autonomously in freedom. There needs to be some kind of guarantor for it, and that role ought to belong to the state. Freedom is little more than an illusion.
I’m convinced a significant portion of people would gladly sell their own freedom if slavery wasn't illegal. But to outlaw slavery, you first have to restrict someone's freedom to sell themselves. Therefore, limiting liberty is a necessity, and that requires a state presence.

Ah, yes, 21st-century human capitalism, featuring the widest wealth gap in history 🙄

Of course this is nonsense. The lower classes have never lived better than they do today. That's just a fact. Go back a hundred years and look at how the poor actually lived compared to how they live now...

I disagree. Slavery, by definition, involves the forcible deprivation of liberty by another person. If an individual chooses to voluntarily restrict their own freedom for the benefit of someone else, that is simply a standard transaction—it has nothing to do with slavery. Following that line of reasoning, a waiter who is required to work an eight-hour shift would be considered a slave, and by that same logic, his employer would be a slave because they are obligated to pay him. I suppose there is no such thing as slavery if there is no coercion involved.

Charles Campbell7 said:I disagree. Slavery, by definition, involves the forcible deprivation of liberty by another person. If an individual chooses to voluntarily restrict their own freedom for the benefit of someone else, that is simply a standard transaction—it has nothing to do with slavery. Following that line of reasoning, a waiter who is required to work an eight-hour shift would be considered a slave, and by that same logic, his employer would be a slave because they are obligated to pay him. I suppose there is no such thing as slavery if there is no coercion involved.

Since the era when slavery was actually legal, the world has seen incredible leaps in knowledge across almost every field.
However, we have also become much more proficient at managing and manipulating the masses, developing methods that are far more sophisticated and significantly less obvious than they used to be.

Nowadays, this control is exerted through indirect means—through dependency, social pressure, legislation, the established social order, and various other subtle tactics.

To illustrate this, let me share just one specific approach.
Drawing from the work of one of the most influential intellectuals in the United States, the linguist Noam Chomsky, I found a list outlining ten distinct strategies used to manipulate people through the media.

lonetrucker4 said:When you look at China, don't act like private business and capitalism just sneaked in through the back door. It was a massive, deliberate takeover, totally micromanaged by the Communist Party. This whole shift kicked off in the late '70s right after they wiped out that four-member gang—you know, the ones including Mao's widow who wanted to stick to that radical Bolshevik nonsense back in '76. They basically followed the path America tried taking in the '60s, but those reforms got choked out in the early '70s, leaving us stuck in a total fake system.

The modern Chinese person really nails that old-school pragmatism and flexible leadership. It’s that perfect mix of solid planning and raw initiative—real Yin and Yang energy right there. 🙂 It’s actually pretty impressive how this one unified country always manages to rebuild itself after a crisis, unlike much of the West—including parts of the Middle East. Even now, the Communist Party calls the shots, with their version of Congress picking new leaders on ten-year cycles. They run on five-year plans, like the thirteenth one happening right now, but they stay flexible, kind of like how we do things here in the States. The government basically steers all the investment; they have a massive hand in the economy. Sure, the Party is central, but anyone can join—just like how, historically, talented kids from even the poorest families could climb the ranks to become high-level officials. They seem to keep some standards too; it's not just about being loyal to the party, you actually have to be smart and work hard. Twenty years ago, right after the Berlin Wall fell, nobody thought it was possible to mash a killer capitalist economy together with a communist political system. But hey, it works. They've had thirty years of insane growth—I remember reading back in the late '90s that the system was "overheating" and bound to slow down, but they’ve already blown past India, which is usually the benchmark. And they're actually pivoting when they need to, like finally tackling the massive environmental destruction they caused or leaning into renewables. Just goes to show they can adapt. Who survives the next thirty years? We'll see. 🙂 I'm definitely not touching any predictions with a ten-foot pole.

Look, China isn't some slam dunk argument for libertarianism or that whole "neoliberal economy" thing. It’s more like proof that capitalism is incredibly flexible—it can play nice with pretty much any political setup, whether it's a democracy, a dictatorship, a fascist regime, or even this current communist vibe. Just look at the US, Vietnam, or Mongolia; they're all basically following a similar playbook.

What truly drives the progress of these nations is the transfer of knowledge and technology rather than the mere existence of capitalism

Historically speaking, China was actually more advanced than Europe centuries ago, and it was Europe that eventually thrived by adopting and integrating the vast wealth of knowledge originating from China.

Think about gunpowder, paper, silk, porcelain...

Jack Smith5 said:It’s wild to think that just a century ago, people didn't have even the basics, yet today we actually possess everything required to provide a comfortable life for EVERYONE on the planet. And what are we doing with that advantage? We’re just sitting here letting tyrants run the whole show.

Jack Smith5, it’s really not that simple. Africa today has five times the population it had a few centuries ago, which means they actually have food. They have enough food to support that same number of Africans from 100 or 200 years ago at a decent standard of living. Instead, they’ve opted to have more hungry children. If you just hand them more food—well, they’ll just end up having even more hungry children.

Education and development—those are processes that move much slower than simply handing someone a meal.

But despite all that, poverty in Africa is plummeting. Most of those disparities you're talking about are primarily happening in the West, even if things in the USA are considered within "normal" limits today. To be precise, the gaps over the last 100 years were actually even wider.

In Africa, the inequality index is dropping while the GDP is rising at the same time.

urbanotter said:What truly drives the progress of these nations is the transfer of knowledge and technology rather than the mere existence of capitalism

Historically speaking, China was actually more advanced than Europe centuries ago, and it was Europe that eventually thrived by adopting and integrating the vast wealth of knowledge originating from China.

Think about gunpowder, paper, silk, porcelain...

That’s funny.

Back in the 50s, China had nuclear energy technology that Americans had only developed about ten years prior—and by the 60s, they already had functional atomic and hydrogen bombs.

On the flip side, though, they didn't have the technology to simply feed their own people—which is a much easier feat than mastering nuclear tech, and something the entire Western world had figured out by the early 20th century.

It's a nice attempt to downplay how much "Western exploiters" actually influenced the rise in living standards, I suppose.🙂

Harold Martin10 said:That’s funny.

Back in the 50s, China had nuclear energy technology that Americans had only developed about ten years prior—and by the 60s, they already had functional atomic and hydrogen bombs.

On the flip side, though, they didn't have the technology to simply feed their own people—which is a much easier feat than mastering nuclear tech, and something the entire Western world had figured out by the early 20th century.

It's a nice attempt to downplay how much "Western exploiters" actually influenced the rise in living standards, I suppose.🙂

That’s exactly right.
The situation was identical with the USSR and the rest of the Eastern Bloc; every ounce of energy and potential was funneled into military tech, which ultimately failed to prevent the total collapse of their systems and markets.

In the end, they tripped up on the simple stuff—producing washing machines, colorful textiles, or basic household trinkets.

Even democracy wasn't the deciding factor here, given that some nations operate under a quasi-democracy while others still cling to a one-party system.

urbanotter said:That’s exactly right.
The situation was identical with the USSR and the rest of the Eastern Bloc; every ounce of energy and potential was funneled into military tech, which ultimately failed to prevent the total collapse of their systems and markets.

In the end, they tripped up on the simple stuff—producing washing machines, colorful textiles, or basic household trinkets.

Even democracy wasn't the deciding factor here, given that some nations operate under a quasi-democracy while others still cling to a one-party system.

They already poured everything they had into grain production, let alone anything else.

James Nguyen13 said:They already poured everything they had into grain production, let alone anything else.

Long story short—they failed because they tried running a planned economy. It's the whole myth that you can centrally control a market, which is basically the core of socialism and all those related nonsense ideologies (you know, that "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" garbage). The reality is simple: there is no economic system more efficient than the free market—and none more democratic, either. In a free market, every single participant is essentially voting dozens of times a day with their wallet on everything from chewing gum to supercomputers. The less free a market is, the more inefficient it becomes. We saw this play out all through the 20th century... every single time these "socialist" or "communist" systems loosened their iron grip on the market, the economy would actually start to recover. Of course, that wasn't "ideologically acceptable," so most of them just died out once they hit an economic wall. All these systems collapsed for purely economic reasons, including our old "self-managed socialism" that some people still ignorantly romanticize today...

Harold Martin10 said:Personally, I’m not even asking you to prove that "always" part. I just want one solid example of a country that’s had socialism for a long stretch—say, fifty years—and is doing just as well as the capitalist neighbors around it.

I mean, if I wanted to be a nitpicker, I could argue that no country has actually maintained socialism for half a century straight. But I won't get bogged down in semantics, so I'll just say Cuba. Life expectancy there is pretty much on par with the USA, and their schools and healthcare systems are honestly some of the best in the world. You don't see hunger; everyone has access to food, water, medical care, and they've got housing sorted out too. Sure, when you look at GDP or total national wealth, Cuba is way behind the USA, but for the average little guy? I guess they might actually have it better. Of course, Cuba is an authoritarian state, and that’s really my only gripe about it.

Besides that, Cuba is pretty much the only place left in the 21st century where you can actually claim it's a socialist state. There isn't anyone else (well, maybe Venezuela).

splićo said:This whole argument about the poor Indian or the poor Chinese person keeps coming up, implying that capitalism is what made them poor... but the West didn't cause poverty for a small Indian person; India was struggling long before they started working with the West. In fact, ever since they've teamed up with Western nations, both China and India have seen massive growth and people are living better than they ever did before.

Well, China and India as nations? Sure. But the Chinese people and Indian people themselves? Not really. I think that's where our communication is tripping up. To me, it matters whether the *people* are doing okay economically, not just the government.

driftingjackal5 said:Basically, they all fell for the trap of a planned economy. It was this whole idea that you could centrally control the market, which is really just the heart of socialism and all those similar nonsense ideas—you know, that whole "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" bit. I mean, the truth is, there just isn't an economic system more efficient than the free market. Honestly, it's probably even more democratic too, because in a free market, everyone is basically voting dozens of times a day with their wallet on everything from gum to supercomputers. I guess the less free a market is, the less efficient it becomes. We saw this all through the 20th century; every single time those "socialist" or "communist" systems loosened their grip on the market, the economy would actually start to recover. But, of course, that wasn't allowed by the ideology, so most of them just collapsed when the money ran out. All those systems failed for purely economic reasons, including our old "self-managed socialism" that some people still try to romanticize today, which is kind of wild if you think about it.

The whole Eastern Bloc was actually running on state capitalism, not true socialism, let alone communism. Communism really only had a brief moment in Spain back in '36. And that version of communism was totally at odds with central planning, which is just an economic project that was doomed from the start.

And again—capitalism can't really be called "freedom," because at its core, it's hierarchical and naturally trends toward creating a plutocracy. Anarcho-capitalism is just a fantasy. ☕

Kimberly Cox59 said:The whole Eastern Bloc was actually running on state capitalism, not true socialism, let alone communism. Communism really only had a brief moment in Spain back in '36. And that version of communism was totally at odds with central planning, which is just an economic project that was doomed from the start.

And again—capitalism can't really be called "freedom," because at its core, it's hierarchical and naturally trends toward creating a plutocracy. Anarcho-capitalism is just a fantasy. ☕

Here’s the actual platform of the Communist Party, pulled straight from Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels' Communist Manifesto. Go ahead, sing your little song about how "central planning isn't communism"...

1. Abolishing landed property and applying a land tax on all rents.

2. A strongly progressive income tax (meaning: the more you make, the bigger the slice they take)

3. Abolition of the right of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state ownership and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Increasing the number of factories and means of production under state ownership, reclaiming waste lands, and improving soil globally through a general central plan.

8. Equal obligation for all to work, creating industrial "armies," especially in agriculture (aka more central planning)

9. Unifying agricultural and industrial production, gradually erasing the divide between town and country by spreading the population more evenly across the country.

10. Free public education in public schools. Ending child labor in its current form. Combining education with industrial production.

Every single one of these points has been tried in one way or another in those "non-communist" countries you're talking about. Some of them are even being used in today's "social democratic" nations. So just stop rambling about stuff you clearly don't understand...

And again—capitalism can never be "freedom," because it's inherently hierarchical and naturally leads to a plutocracy. Anarcho-capitalism is just a fantasy... ☕

I see the words on my screen, but I don't see a single actual argument to back them up. "Because I said so" isn't an argument. Besides, does being an anarchist mean you have to fight every single hierarchy? Is authority itself automatically bad? What about experts or people with specialized knowledge? Even your favorite guy, Bakunin, writes that we should trust justified authorities. You wouldn't let a carpenter fix your computer, would you? Or ask a psychologist to explain math...