I’m specifically talking about that American-style free market libertarianism (as opposed to say, libertarian socialism or even neoliberalism to an extent). It’s the ideology that says “the government shouldn’t be in the business of doing ______”. This notion that the most successful (hypothetical) economies are those that remove all regulations and restrictions, let business owners do their thing, keep taxes to a minimum, and keep the government limited to only the most basic functions like police, military, courts, and very limited infrastructure (so like, just roads and maybe rails and power lines, but the private sector should run the trains and power companies).

What China has done with its economy over the last 40 years clearly disproves these libertarian hopes and dreams that the free market is best and any state intervention is doomed to failure. This thought occurred to me when a libertarian family member asked why I wasn’t a libertarian, and because I didn’t want to really get into it with this person, I just let out “because China exists!” with a generous helping of derision. This person’s response was “well… but they’re aUtHoRiTaRiAn”, and clearly didn’t want to engage any more with me on it, and I was happy to oblige.

But I’ve been thinking about the implications of what I said since then. Looking objectively at what China has accomplished, it is inarguable that this could only be accomplished with heavy intervention by the state. Of course myself and everyone here knows that’s thanks to socialism, but even if you’re someone who thinks China is merely “state capitalist”… it strains credulity to think China could accomplish all it has and be on the trajectory it is now if it embraced free market libertarian capitalism and let “the market” decide all outcomes at every level.

I know it’s not just China, but the entire history of capitalism shows it’s needed heavy state intervention to keep things running. But highlighting China is I think useful just because it’s such a stark example that people can see with their own eyes right now. I especially enjoy how you can contrast present day China (the success of socialism) with Milei’s Argentina (the failure of libertarian economics).

  • darkernations@lemmygrad.ml
    25·
    18 days ago

    Libertarianism - capitalist or socialist - will always end up creating the bourgoisie state, with the socialist variety can only exist otherwise as communism.

  • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
    22·
    18 days ago

    American libertarianism is fundamentally grounded in chauvanism. The logic at the root of it is:

    • The US is the greatest country on earth, and has the best chance of succeeding at anything out of every country (unstated)

    • The US government sucks

    • Therefore, all possible governments suck

    It’s a difficult brainworm to dislodge because they aren’t even conscious of their chauvanism. They’ll happily criticize the US government, but it’ll always be in the style of, “What are we, a bunch of Asians?” and every bad thing they see here will just be assumed to be even worse in other countries, “If it’s that bad here, imagine what it must be like in China!”

    • snowfal@lemmy.zip
      9·
      17 days ago

      For the majority of American libertarians that I’ve known, the logic at the root of it is that initiating physical violence is always morally wrong, and that because government must by necessity enforce its laws with initiated physical violence, or at least the threat there of, government itself is morally wrong. They argue that capitalism is a series of voluntary and peaceful agreements, and nobody’s physically forcing anyone to do anything, and so therefore it’s the best system that could ever exist.

      The appeal of the philosophy is that it’s so simple. You don’t need any understanding of economics, social contract, history, or the living conditions of people you’ve never met to understand that initiating violence is wrong. Most libertarians I’ve known will inevitably fall back on the moral argument of initiated physical violence, the non-aggression principle, when all other arguments fail. Show them as many statistics as you want, and none of it will matter because government interrupts the peaceful natural order of capitalism, and therefore will always be morally wrong.

      And so their political orientation becomes not to improve conditions for all, but to return dollars unjustly stolen through taxation to their naturally rightful owners, the bourgeoisie, and restore the world to its natural, utopian free market state where everything is a business and everyone has an equal opportunity to become a billionaire. Without the government violence of taxation and regulation, everything will just kind of naturally sort itself out. After all, no one would willingly do business with abusers or predators, so those kinds of people would never succeed or gain power, right?

      It’s a brilliant trap because it disincentives people from studying economics, political philosophy, or non-American forms of government. Why waste time on any of that when you can cast it all under the umbrella of “statism”. I don’t need to learn how any of these systems work, because they all rely on the initiation of physical aggression, so they’re all morally wrong. And so the fact that American schools don’t teach any of these things isn’t a problem that needs to be corrected, because they think the existence of public education at all is immoral.

  • haui@lemmygrad.ml
    13·
    19 days ago

    As someone who built a company from the ground up in short time with little borrowed money (and the privilege of a sufficient credit score of course), it is one or more of the following three things:

    • budget
    • literal brainpower
    • ruthlessness

    I proved this through years long experimentation but it still only is anecdotal evidence. I bear firms who were 10 times my size through careful planning and smarr execution while they were sleeping, but I got beaten by someone who was a little less smart but really ruthless.

    Since this is not an uncommon theme, I’ll just run with it and state that this always leads to centralization because people have different upbringings and therefore different abilities which will always lead to capital concentration. First, its the daring ones, then its the smart ones, then its the ruthless ones and then it is those with the most accumulated money.

    So yes, libertarian capitalism wont work, ever.

    • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      22·
      19 days ago

      If you think about it, the most efficient job possible is to rob people. These are my observations on my context, a grain merchant that robs it’s clients it’s always gonna outperform the “honest” merchant that buys the grain at market place. They have obviously much higher profit margins and end up growing at a faster pace than the “honest” ones, eventually the sly merchants end up establishing themselves as the big ones.

      In the long run, this system just inevitably fails because the people that produce the actual commodities get pushed out of business unless they do their own robberies, likely to their own workers.

  • GreatSquare@lemmygrad.ml
    8·
    19 days ago

    Of course myself and everyone here knows that’s thanks to socialism, but even if you’re someone who thinks China is merely “state capitalist”… it strains credulity to think China could accomplish all it has and be on the trajectory it is now if it embraced free market libertarian capitalism and let “the market” decide all outcomes at every level.

    Super simplified ideas like “state capitalism” are just lazy and basically a coping mechanism. If it’s so easy to turn shit around, why can’t other governments do it?

    Macro economics and micro economics are different. Hence government can not treat the economy like a really big business. All governments “intervene” simply by existing. The public sector is the source of money in modern monetary theory. The public sector must also remove money from the economy through taxation to avoid inflation by matching the amount of resources available to be purchased with that money.

    Having that balance correct seems to be just one aspect that makes an economy successful. The MOST important thing is supply chains. IF government can’t efficiently get basic commodities like food, shelter, transportation, education and healthcare to its people, then the PRICES shoot up. This is basically the problem that Argentina has gotten into.

    The $20B bailout from the US will not help unless Milei addresses that.

    • Saymaz@lemmygrad.ml
      16·
      18 days ago

      Yankoid: China is not socialist, it’s capitalist.

      Curious person: Then why don’t we do capitalism like China does.

      Yankoid: Idiot, that would be socialism! And we all know socialism stifles innovation and economic freedom.

      • prof_tincoa@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
        8·
        18 days ago

        Schroedinger’s economic system, in a permanent state of being capitalist and socialist until a political comment is made

      • GreatSquare@lemmygrad.ml
        7·
        18 days ago

        The inherent problem with the Yankoid is distrusting their own system: “Government has to be stripped of all assets because they can’t be as effective as private industry. Healthcare, education, utilities, transportation all have to be in private hands. Even military arms production is better privatised.”

        When you point out how expensive and subpar that shit is, the copium and excuses come out.

        copium

    • darkernations@lemmygrad.ml
      12·
      17 days ago

      Personally I wouldn’t agree that China is even a socialist state anymore… Feel free to disagree, i joined this site to learn so any info I’m missing i’m glad to read.

      1. If one believes that then one has to concede that capitalism is the greatest system in the world, given China has lifted 800 million people out of absolute poverty in the shortest time world history as ever seen: https://thetricontinental.org/studies-1-socialist-construction/

      2. Most of the world is capitalist. Most of the world is poor. One would have to square the circle that no other capitalist country has matched the fast developmental progression that China has achieved and one would have to consider how a capitalist country could achieve this without a dictatorship against capital. (Consider reading the above study and really think how unthinkable most of what has been described and achieved would be in a capitalist country)

      3. If one could accept that pro-social projects such as universal health care like the NHS in the UK can exist in a capitalist country then may be that could help one see that capitalist mechanisms can exist under socialism.

      Marxism is a science; socialism is scientific not utopian, so one would have to consider the dialectics of building socialism in a world dominant of capitalism ie what parts of capitalism will be in socialism as socialism evolves.

      Best of luck with your ML journey.