Common leftist talking points and some responses to them.

Posted by KochamPolsceRazDwa@reddit | Libertarian | View on Reddit | 27 comments

1. Sweden is socialist and therefore, socialism is successful

This argument is easy to debunk. Sweden used to have a regulated economy but when they added universal healthcare and high taxation, their economy froze and they had to completely deregulate it. Imo if it's actually pretty Libertarian in terms of economics but in terms of government, it's kinda big.

2. Communism only failed because Capitalists sabotaged by not trading with them

Socialist countries are not entitled to the fruits of Capitalism. If you want Capitalists to invest in your country, don't scare them by stealing their property and pretty much making it unprofitable to make business in it. Capitalist countries are not obligated to empower the economies of people who would steal their property, murder them and ruin their nation. Also, most countries want to trade with successful countries, not commie disasters.

3. Soviet Union and China are State Capitalists not Socialists

This talking point is partially true with China. They did have a tiny bit of liberalization but does a tiny bit of freedom completely undermine total control of the economy by the state? Also, the only reason why China has any influence is from the liberalization, their economy was shit before it.

4. McCarthy is evil

This painting of McCarthy as some sort of demonic entity by socialists is in fact, historical revisionism. McCarthy prosecuted Hollywood for communists and.... guess what... he was right... It was filled to the brim with socialists, commies and more of the like. He made them snitch on each other. I think they're trying to make people ignore the fact he was correct and most of the people he prosecuted were in fact, commies and spies. I think it's so that people view commies as victims and ignore their danger.

[-]

Onlone_Private_User@reddit

I also saw this a post in which a guy makes the case that liberterianism is just half of socialism. He said that socialism begins with individualism, and ends up becoming collectivist. He said the difference between socialism and libertarianisn is merely that liberterians never get to the collectivism part.

Such a statement is frankly wrong on so many very elementary levels.

For one, it's a game of ends and means. Liberterianism and socialism are in fact fundamentally opposite disciplines because our ends and means are in juxtaposition. Socialism attempts to achieve ends of equality/egalitarianism (among others) on a individual level, which is done through collectivist means. Liberterianism aims toward collective prosperity (among others), and it does so via individualistic means.

[-]

elganador0@reddit

Sweden experienced it's tremendous growth through free markets in the 20th century and it's growth has slowed down considerably under it's strong welfare programs in the last few decades. And its not even a socialist country. It's a democratic socialist country. Just because they label it democratic socialism that doesn't mean its socialism. We all would agree the Democratic Republic of the Congo is not a democratic republic just because it has the name.
This is probably true on some level. It's hard to believe Cuba would not have done better if the US did not place sanctions on them for decades. And Burkina Faso under Sankara accomplished plenty. But we have an endless amount of examples where socialism and central planning policies simply worsen things quickly, if not on a long enough timeline. Look at Africa. In Magette Wade's book she highlights that most of Africa is without growth largely because of the business culture. 13 of the 20 worst places to do business in the world are in Africa. There's too much central planning that keeps African business owners, in her own words, "in chains". But even the Soviet Union did well for a while, emerging from the deadliest war in history with a high literacy population, leading the space race. They were even so nutrient-rich that they exported oil. And they fell apart because of mismanagement.
This is false. I don't know how someone could say this. The Soviet Union was socialist. And China is a socialist nation that has expanded in recent decades through a capitalist market economy. That is a fact.
McCarthy was an ass-hat idiot of a politician consolidating his influence to menace people who he knew nothing about without any good information. That sounds like a socialist to me.

[-]

KochamPolsceRazDwa@reddit (OP)

I don't believe what the mainstream says about McCarthy because most of the people saying he's bad are communists or related to communists, it looks like they're demonizing someone who caught them red-handed (pun intended) trying to subvert America into communism. The New York Times were full back then and still is, of communists.

[-]

Ok-Background7524@reddit

I thought many Nordic countries are still considered very successful social democracy?

[-]

KochamPolsceRazDwa@reddit (OP)

Yea, but socialists claim that those are successful feats of socialism.

[-]

chechnyah0merdrive@reddit

This is my first time seeing #2 and I can't believe people think that's a real argument.

I'm mixed. I have no room for commies, but the persecution for their belief wasn't the way to go. Dems and libs already shit on libertarians and shove us into the "threat to democracy" bs and would probably McCarthy us if they could.

[-]

libertarianinus@reddit

The point is, the communism will fail without the help of free-market keeping them alive.

Communism - we have the best system

Free-market - why do you need to trade with us then?

[-]

Wintergreen61@reddit

I've seen #2 used plenty of times as an explanation for Cuba's problems, not so much with the USSR.

[-]

chechnyah0merdrive@reddit

Oh snap! That’s right, the embargo.

[-]

Epic_highs_and_lows@reddit

Yeah the U.S. enforcing an embargo that stops anyone from trading with Cuba is based and libertarian.

[-]

KochamPolsceRazDwa@reddit (OP)

Something I dislike about Liberalism is that it lets everyone in. I understand why you dislike McCarthy but let's be real here, tolerating communists in a libertarian Society is like tolerating black mold because you like growing plants. Maybe it'll be fine but you'll regret it when you get permanent lung damage/ a communist hellhole.

This is a pretty hot take but we should be allowed to disassociate from communists, the state shouldn't forcefully coerce people into being anti-communists obviously but if we expose these people, we should also completely bar them from engaging with us economically. Force them out by not interacting with them, they are pariahs for supporting what will be our destruction and should be treated as such.

[-]

chechnyah0merdrive@reddit

We already have the beginnings of a paralell economy between liberals and conservatives, so this is possible. We have freedom of movement and association already. However, this would work on a smaller level than nationally. I wouldn't expose, but if I felt the need to distance myself from people whom I disagree with, I would form a community that doesn't cater to them. If said community quietly shunned or refused to provide service, exposing commies and the like wouldn't be necessary. Their beliefs would reveal themselves, no need to go on a witch hunt.

I take it you'd support national divorce as I do. :)

[-]

LoneHelldiver@reddit

This is a little delusional. In this country people move to where you have your community then vote for all the policies they left behind, and sue you for not associating with them.

[-]

KochamPolsceRazDwa@reddit (OP)

yup, I would support a natural divorce. Also, I'm not sure if what I suggested is a witch hunt but basically if a commie suggested communism, everyone should be allowed to not cater to them. Businesses have the right to not serve who they don't want.

[-]

chechnyah0merdrive@reddit

I gotcha, apologies for the assumption.

[-]

1980Phils@reddit

Punishing people for having beliefs you dislike is Un-American. Even if those beliefs are as regarded as communism. Religion is belief. Freedom of religion gives all Americans the right to believe whatever they want. I believe you fight communism by winning the war of ideas. Not be silencing or canceling your fellow countrymen. Cancel culture is as dangerous as McCarthy’s witch hunts. The testimony of people who have escaped communism,and even socialist nightmares, should be enough. Sadly we’re losing that war of ideas currently. But I have hope.

[-]

gooper29@reddit

number 2 can be debunked by simply looking at the soviet union, only socialism could make a nation with such an abundance of natural resources poor.

[-]

HTownLaserShow@reddit

Venezuela is far richer in resources than the Soviet Union could ever dream of.

Crazy, but true.

And it’s the perfect example of what happens when the state is in charge of redistribution

[-]

King_Burnside@reddit

In truth nothing will make Russia rich under any system. The input costs, particularly for infrastructure, transport, and housing, are just too damn high to make them competitive. And most of the accessible Soviet mineral wealth lay outside modern Russia.

[-]

misspelledusernaym@reddit

I agree with most of what you say. One point id like to bring up is saying state capitalism is an oxymoron. Capitalism is about private prooerty. If it is the state in control it is not capitalism.

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

State capitalism

noun A term to describe socialist countries after they inevitably turn into a humanitarian crisis.

Example: Venezuela used to be praised by socialists as real socialism™ and an economic miracle:

But now that bolivars are no longer worth their weight in toiler paper, we call it state capitalism.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]