Pinned Tweet
Everyone claims to want people fed, housed, educated, and treated with dignity. That's the easiest moral position imaginable, requiring neither thought nor effort.
The sincerity of that commitment is revealed by whether you're willing to examine what actually achieves those outcomes, what undermines them, and at whose expense.
By the socialist standard, even forced labor can be justified in pursuit of these goals, and even policies producing the opposite results can be defended as virtuous.
Virtue signaling earns applause for good intentions. Genuine concern demands understanding, evidence, and results. Far too many seem content with the applause.
The sincerity of that commitment is revealed by whether you're willing to examine what actually achieves those outcomes, what undermines them, and at whose expense.
By the socialist standard, even forced labor can be justified in pursuit of these goals, and even policies producing the opposite results can be defended as virtuous.
Virtue signaling earns applause for good intentions. Genuine concern demands understanding, evidence, and results. Far too many seem content with the applause.
229
827
5,674
135,528
The energy behind communism is the conviction that its advocates would starve without the wealth they demand be confiscated from others.
Imagine boasting about your revolutionary strength while insisting your survival depends on compulsory handouts from the very people you despise.
Hardly an intimidating opponent.
An ideology whose advocates openly advertise their dependence isn't particularly threatening intellectually, provided its contradictions are relentlessly exposed.
The danger begins when people mistake their demands for moral claims and grant them the political power to enforce them.
Imagine boasting about your revolutionary strength while insisting your survival depends on compulsory handouts from the very people you despise.
Hardly an intimidating opponent.
An ideology whose advocates openly advertise their dependence isn't particularly threatening intellectually, provided its contradictions are relentlessly exposed.
The danger begins when people mistake their demands for moral claims and grant them the political power to enforce them.
The energy of the Republican Party is now maintained by Gen X/late millennial subhuman gamer retards.
They collect firearms as toys, support foreign wars, but have no courage in their hearts. Their idol is Pete Hegseth.
They are paper tigers who can be easily defeated.
0
5
40
716
In other words, Mélenchon wants to grant the state the power to confiscate property by violating the rights of its rightful owners.
There is no corresponding right or legitimate entitlement on his side. Only a demand for coercive authority over what belongs to others.
This is the fundamental inversion of justice at the heart of socialism: the individual is stripped of his rights while the state claims the power to violate them.
And somehow, those advocating legalized theft imagine themselves champions of morality.
Property rights exist precisely to prevent people like Mélenchon from exercising such power.
There is no corresponding right or legitimate entitlement on his side. Only a demand for coercive authority over what belongs to others.
This is the fundamental inversion of justice at the heart of socialism: the individual is stripped of his rights while the state claims the power to violate them.
And somehow, those advocating legalized theft imagine themselves champions of morality.
Property rights exist precisely to prevent people like Mélenchon from exercising such power.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon sur le droit de propriété :
"Le droit de propriété n'est plus supportable (...). J'ai bien l'intention de faire en sorte que, d'une manière ou d'une autre, on puisse réquisitionner (...)."
Mélenchon président, votre propriété ne vous appartiendra plus : elle dépendra de son bon vouloir.
Quand la propriété dépend du bon vouloir d’un homme, on n’est plus en démocratie, on est en dictature.
x.com/FrenchCarcan/s…
4
7
35
847
Le capitalisme repose précisément sur la coopération volontaire. Des millions d'individus échangent, produisent, innovent et s'entraident sans avoir besoin de vos directives.
Vous confondez compétition et hostilité, coopération et soumission.
Votre idéal d'entraide devient curieusement une obligation imposée par l'État, financée par la contrainte et administrée par des politiciens.
L'entraide volontaire est une vertu. L'entraide forcée est une contradiction.
Et vous avez l'audace de vous présenter comme moralement supérieur parce que vous souhaitez contraindre les autres à pratiquer votre conception de la générosité.
La générosité avec l'argent des autres n'est pas une vertu, monsieur Mélenchon. C'est une ambition politique.
Vous confondez compétition et hostilité, coopération et soumission.
Votre idéal d'entraide devient curieusement une obligation imposée par l'État, financée par la contrainte et administrée par des politiciens.
L'entraide volontaire est une vertu. L'entraide forcée est une contradiction.
Et vous avez l'audace de vous présenter comme moralement supérieur parce que vous souhaitez contraindre les autres à pratiquer votre conception de la générosité.
La générosité avec l'argent des autres n'est pas une vertu, monsieur Mélenchon. C'est une ambition politique.
La société de mes rêves est une société d'entraide.
Mme Thatcher et les libéraux souhaitent l'inverse.
Dans son ouvrage "L'Entraide, l'autre loi de la jungle", Pablo Servigne montre que la logique de l'entraide est prévalente sur la compétition dans la nature.
Il explique que e aggraverait les catastrophes, car elle ne permet pas l'entraide.
2
9
23
687
This reads less like a plan to reverse Europe's decline and more like a blueprint for accelerating it.
Abandon a common currency, print money to finance government spending, expand state control, and restrict private borrowing.
Punish private enterprise, undermine monetary discipline, and concentrate even more economic power in the hands of politicians.
At what point does advocating more of the policies contributing to Europe's economic stagnation stop looking like a solution and start looking like deliberate sabotage?
You'd almost think Europe's decline was the objective rather than the problem.
Abandon a common currency, print money to finance government spending, expand state control, and restrict private borrowing.
Punish private enterprise, undermine monetary discipline, and concentrate even more economic power in the hands of politicians.
At what point does advocating more of the policies contributing to Europe's economic stagnation stop looking like a solution and start looking like deliberate sabotage?
You'd almost think Europe's decline was the objective rather than the problem.
Excellent insights by @SteveKeenEcon on the systemic flaws behind the current crisis in France and across Europe.
His four "heretical" conclusions to end Europe's decline are:
1️⃣ Abolish the Euro and return to national currencies.
2️⃣ Run government deficits to create fiat money.
3️⃣ Use those deficits to fully fund public education and infrastructure.
4️⃣ Restrict private debt—the true trigger of economic collapse.
profstevekeen.substack.com/p/french-stude…
1
3
13
499
A Marxist accusing economists of inventing a fantasy world to justify their ideology is a remarkable display of projection.
Neoclassical economics attempts to explain how people actually make choices under scarcity, using models that can be tested and criticized.
Marxism predicts how society ought to evolve, then spends generations explaining why reality refuses to cooperate.
One studies incentives, trade-offs, and human behavior. The other promises liberation through abolishing private ownership while somehow expecting concentrated political power to produce freedom.
And you think the economists are the irrational ones?
Neoclassical economics attempts to explain how people actually make choices under scarcity, using models that can be tested and criticized.
Marxism predicts how society ought to evolve, then spends generations explaining why reality refuses to cooperate.
One studies incentives, trade-offs, and human behavior. The other promises liberation through abolishing private ownership while somehow expecting concentrated political power to produce freedom.
And you think the economists are the irrational ones?
Neoclassical economics is ultimate form of bourgoies irrationalism.
Nobody can justify the existing economy, so the elites invented a fantasy world to imagine how they would like capitalism to work ideally.
Then they call it a “science” & lecture you on why you need to study it.
3
7
54
879
Capitalism didn't create your need to work to survive. Nature did.
An employer doesn't impose that necessity upon you. He offers you an opportunity to satisfy it through voluntary exchange.
Socialism doesn't eliminate the necessity of work. It merely transfers authority over production to politicians or the collective.
Under capitalism, you're free to change employers, negotiate wages, work for yourself, or establish a cooperative. None guarantees success, but the freedom exists.
And here's where your moral superiority becomes particularly ridiculous.
You condemn people for offering employment on terms others are free to reject, yet consider yourself morally entitled to dictate how they must use their property, run their businesses, and compensate others.
You call voluntary agreements exploitation while presenting coercion as compassion.
Your objection isn't that people are being forced to serve others. It's that they aren't being forced to serve others on your terms.
And somehow, you've convinced yourself that makes you the moral one.
An employer doesn't impose that necessity upon you. He offers you an opportunity to satisfy it through voluntary exchange.
Socialism doesn't eliminate the necessity of work. It merely transfers authority over production to politicians or the collective.
Under capitalism, you're free to change employers, negotiate wages, work for yourself, or establish a cooperative. None guarantees success, but the freedom exists.
And here's where your moral superiority becomes particularly ridiculous.
You condemn people for offering employment on terms others are free to reject, yet consider yourself morally entitled to dictate how they must use their property, run their businesses, and compensate others.
You call voluntary agreements exploitation while presenting coercion as compassion.
Your objection isn't that people are being forced to serve others. It's that they aren't being forced to serve others on your terms.
And somehow, you've convinced yourself that makes you the moral one.
After reading the replies to my original post, I've learned that some libertarians have a much bigger problem than their understanding of economics. Their complete lack of empathy is fucking astonishing.
I suggested that paying half your income in rent because the alternative is sleeping in a freezing car isn't exactly a wonderful example of economic freedom. The responses were an extraordinary collection of lectures about voluntary exchange, personal responsibility, property rights, and why homelessness is apparently just another consumer preference.
Here are the five most common arguments.
1. It's voluntary because nobody is forcing you.
Apparently, choosing between unaffordable rent and sleeping in your car is the expression of liberty. Sure, nobody is holding a gun to your head. But someone with $500 in the bank doesn't have the same bargaining power as someone with $10 million in property. A decision made under financial desperation is still a decision. That doesn't mean the person has meaningful economic freedom. If your definition of liberty includes celebrating someone's choice to freeze in their car, perhaps your philosophy needs some fucking work.
2. Just move, get roommates, buy a house, or sleep in your car.
This was my favorite. One person suggested getting a gym membership so you could sleep in your car and still shower. Others recommended second jobs, roommates, or simply buying a house. Fucking brilliant. But what happens when millions of households simultaneously move somewhere cheaper? Demand increases, and those locations become less affordable unless housing supply expands. What works for one individual doesn't necessarily work for everyone. It's called the fallacy of composition. An entire housing crisis cannot be solved by giving millions of people individual financial advice. Yet apparently, sleeping in a Toyota Corolla now constitutes a comprehensive economic policy.
3. Government regulations and central banks caused expensive housing.
This was actually a reasonable argument, at least initially. Restrictive zoning and excessive development regulations absolutely can contribute to expensive housing. But blaming government for every undesirable market outcome is just ideological laziness. Housing prices also depend on incomes, credit conditions, construction costs, land values, population growth, speculation, and investment expectations. Developers build when they expect sufficient profits, not simply because people need somewhere to live. Removing bad regulations can improve housing supply. It doesn't magically eliminate every other economic problem. An economy is an interconnected system, not a fucking supply-and-demand diagram.
4. The landlord provides a mutually beneficial service.
Several people argued that rental transactions must benefit both parties because otherwise they wouldn't happen. Yes, someone facing homelessness might prefer paying half their income in rent to sleeping outside. Congratulations. You've established that people prefer shelter to freezing. But that doesn't prove the housing market is competitive, affordable, or producing desirable outcomes. People routinely accept terrible arrangements because their alternatives are worse. Individual rationality doesn't guarantee desirable outcomes for society. The existence of a transaction isn't proof that the economic system is working particularly well.
5. You aren't entitled to someone else's property or labor.
And naturally, someone had to start screaming about communism. Apparently, suggesting that people shouldn't have to sleep in freezing cars is now revolutionary Marxism. I support private property, competitive markets, and private enterprise. But supporting capitalism doesn't require celebrating every outcome it produces. Property rights don't automatically guarantee affordable housing, economic efficiency, or an equitable distribution of resources. You can defend private property without treating human suffering as an acceptable demonstration of economic liberty.
Now, here's what genuinely disturbed me.
I expected arguments about economics. What I didn't expect was how enthusiastically some people recommended homelessness. Sleep in your car. Get a gym membership. Work three jobs. Move away. Stop complaining. These weren't hypothetical responses. People actually suggested these things. Imagine seeing someone struggling to afford shelter and immediately explaining why they should be grateful to their landlord. What kind of fucking worldview produces that reaction?
Markets are supposed to serve human beings. Human beings aren't supposed to suffer simply to validate someone's economic philosophy. I'm a supporter of free markets, but I don't believe that requires abandoning basic human empathy. The irony is that people who constantly preach individual liberty seem perfectly comfortable dismissing the economic circumstances that restrict it.
If your response to someone facing homelessness is to congratulate them on having the freedom to sleep in their fucking car, perhaps you've spent too much time defending capitalism and not enough time interacting with actual human beings.
14
91
480
4,870
In the last four weeks, I learned that my stepsister has stage 4 cancer, my stepmother has a potentially aggressive brain tumor that can't be completely removed, and today, my mother passed away.
I'm not entirely sure how I feel yet. Mostly shock, I think, and an instinct to keep moving forward.
Life doesn't owe us fairness, and reality doesn't make exceptions for anyone.
But there's still plenty to live for, people to love, things to accomplish, and happiness to pursue.
And I have no intention of losing sight of that.
I'm not entirely sure how I feel yet. Mostly shock, I think, and an instinct to keep moving forward.
Life doesn't owe us fairness, and reality doesn't make exceptions for anyone.
But there's still plenty to live for, people to love, things to accomplish, and happiness to pursue.
And I have no intention of losing sight of that.
195
28
722
9,237
They farmed to feed themselves and their families. That's subsistence farming.
Profit is what incentivizes people to produce more than they personally consume, invest in greater productivity, and feed millions of strangers.
Communists apparently think humanity spending most of its history one bad harvest away from starvation is an argument against capitalism.
Quite the endorsement.
Profit is what incentivizes people to produce more than they personally consume, invest in greater productivity, and feed millions of strangers.
Communists apparently think humanity spending most of its history one bad harvest away from starvation is an argument against capitalism.
Quite the endorsement.
22
103
755
8,355
Libertarians don't believe every transaction is voluntary. They believe consent distinguishes voluntary transactions from coercion.
Your landlord didn't create your need for shelter, and refusing to provide you with his property for free isn't coercion.
You need food to survive, too. Does that make farmers your oppressors?
Your argument isn't against exploitation. It's against the inconvenience of other people having rights.
Your landlord didn't create your need for shelter, and refusing to provide you with his property for free isn't coercion.
You need food to survive, too. Does that make farmers your oppressors?
Your argument isn't against exploitation. It's against the inconvenience of other people having rights.
Libertarians believe every transaction is voluntary, including paying a landlord half your income because the alternative is sleeping in your fucking car.
12
89
644
7,422
When communists accuse someone of bootlicking billionaires or glazing corporations, what they're often condemning is the consistent defense of individual rights, including the rights of people they despise.
And that's precisely what makes them useful idiots for authoritarianism.
They imagine they're granting the state power over the rich, when they're actually granting it power over everyone.
It's not a battle against billionaires. It's the establishment of a precedent that applies to every individual the state wishes to control.
The bootlickers are those demanding more powerful boots.
And that's precisely what makes them useful idiots for authoritarianism.
They imagine they're granting the state power over the rich, when they're actually granting it power over everyone.
It's not a battle against billionaires. It's the establishment of a precedent that applies to every individual the state wishes to control.
The bootlickers are those demanding more powerful boots.
Liberatarians are conservatives who glaze corporations and like weed.
8
39
182
2,286
Fascists and communists have both practiced:
• State-directed production
• Suppression of economic freedom
• Confiscation of private property
• State control of labor
• Price and wage controls
• Political control of industry
• Suppression of dissent
• Subordination of individual rights to collective objectives
• Concentration of political and economic power
Their justifications differ. Their methods overlap considerably.
One subordinates the individual to the nation, the other to the class.
Capitalism subordinates neither to the state.
The distinction that matters isn't which collective supposedly benefits from coercion. It's whether individuals have the right to refuse it.
• State-directed production
• Suppression of economic freedom
• Confiscation of private property
• State control of labor
• Price and wage controls
• Political control of industry
• Suppression of dissent
• Subordination of individual rights to collective objectives
• Concentration of political and economic power
Their justifications differ. Their methods overlap considerably.
One subordinates the individual to the nation, the other to the class.
Capitalism subordinates neither to the state.
The distinction that matters isn't which collective supposedly benefits from coercion. It's whether individuals have the right to refuse it.
I don’t know who needs to hear this but one cannot be both a fascist and a communist. Those ideals are light years apart.
7
40
166
2,045
I've noticed communists love accusing their critics of not understanding communism while carefully avoiding defining it themselves.
I suspect there are two reasons:
1. They don't understand it well enough to define it coherently.
2. They understand it perfectly well but realize that explicitly explaining how property, production, individual rights, and dissent would be treated would make their ideology considerably harder to defend.
Either way, demanding that others read more theory isn't an argument.
Define your system. Explain how it works, who enforces it, and what happens to those who refuse to participate.
Then we'll see who understands it.
I suspect there are two reasons:
1. They don't understand it well enough to define it coherently.
2. They understand it perfectly well but realize that explicitly explaining how property, production, individual rights, and dissent would be treated would make their ideology considerably harder to defend.
Either way, demanding that others read more theory isn't an argument.
Define your system. Explain how it works, who enforces it, and what happens to those who refuse to participate.
Then we'll see who understands it.
The major problem with anti-communists is that they’ve never read anything at all about communism.
They’ve only ever been (mis)informed about it by the Epstein media.
If they’re actually informed about what communism truly means, they’d have no choice but be sympathetic to it.
51
68
417
6,983
On whose authority?
And once the state is abolished, how does society remain socialist? Who prevents individuals from owning property, employing others, accumulating capital, and trading freely?
If nobody enforces socialism, capitalism can reemerge voluntarily.
If someone enforces it, you've simply recreated the state under another name.
And once the state is abolished, how does society remain socialist? Who prevents individuals from owning property, employing others, accumulating capital, and trading freely?
If nobody enforces socialism, capitalism can reemerge voluntarily.
If someone enforces it, you've simply recreated the state under another name.
@RockChartrand Socialism calls for the dissolution of capitalism and the state.
14
24
239
4,123
“State capitalism” is a convenient oxymoron for communists who need capitalism to take the blame for the consequences of socialism.
Capitalism requires private property and voluntary exchange; state ownership replaces both with political authority.
Calling state control capitalism merely gives communists a scapegoat for consequences of their own principles.
Capitalism requires private property and voluntary exchange; state ownership replaces both with political authority.
Calling state control capitalism merely gives communists a scapegoat for consequences of their own principles.
10
15
96
1,414
Because nothing says fascism quite like advocating individual liberty, property rights, and leaving people free to live their lives.
Meanwhile, socialism demands that the state exercise the same sweeping authority over individuals and the economy that fascists claimed, only with class replacing nation or race as the central justification.
Different rhetoric, same fundamental principle: the individual exists at the mercy of the collective.
Meanwhile, socialism demands that the state exercise the same sweeping authority over individuals and the economy that fascists claimed, only with class replacing nation or race as the central justification.
Different rhetoric, same fundamental principle: the individual exists at the mercy of the collective.
Libertarians have more in common with fascists than they think.
7
25
142
2,104
Under capitalism, you're free to undercut billionaires, offer better products, pay higher wages, and establish worker-owned businesses.
Odd how communists, who claim to represent the working class and champion worker ownership, rarely seem interested in building these alternatives themselves.
Instead, they demand more government intervention, restrictions, taxation, and redistribution, then complain about high prices, low wages, and political favoritism.
Much of what socialists complain about is the predictable consequence of the very policies they advocate.
Their solution? More of the same.
Odd how communists, who claim to represent the working class and champion worker ownership, rarely seem interested in building these alternatives themselves.
Instead, they demand more government intervention, restrictions, taxation, and redistribution, then complain about high prices, low wages, and political favoritism.
Much of what socialists complain about is the predictable consequence of the very policies they advocate.
Their solution? More of the same.
Every single one of your problems is billionaires.
High prices.
Low wages.
High Taxes.
Poor Services.
Unaffordable Housing...
Everything, it is all the cost of BILLIONAIRES.
10
22
124
2,161
The hypocrisy is pretending these are two different systems.
Do you imagine socialism or communism eliminates corporate favoritism? It institutionalizes it.
In a system without private property rights, do you seriously imagine the state leaves industry alone?
It doesn't merely subsidize businesses. It creates them by decree, protects them from competition, dictates production, and replaces consumer choice with political commands.
You're condemning government interference in capitalism while advocating a system built entirely around it.
Do you imagine socialism or communism eliminates corporate favoritism? It institutionalizes it.
In a system without private property rights, do you seriously imagine the state leaves industry alone?
It doesn't merely subsidize businesses. It creates them by decree, protects them from competition, dictates production, and replaces consumer choice with political commands.
You're condemning government interference in capitalism while advocating a system built entirely around it.
I really don’t understand if capitalism is so great then why do big corporations need tax breaks, subsidies, grants, bailouts and extra legal protections to survive and when ordinary people like you and me ask for help then it suddenly becomes socialism. Why so much hypocrisy?
5
11
49
1,147
It's not utopia I believe in. It's principles.
Capitalism rests on private property, individual rights, and voluntary exchange.
By what principle of capitalism does the state acquire the authority to confiscate property, dictate economic terms, or force one individual to provide for another?
Those powers contradict the very rights capitalism is supposed to protect.
Communists seem perfectly capable of understanding what PUBLIC ownership means, yet suddenly struggle with the meaning of PRIVATE ownership.
And calling me an idealist doesn't answer the question.
If a government violates capitalist principles, that's an argument against the government, not those principles.
You're confusing the existence of capitalism with the absence of violations against it.
Capitalism rests on private property, individual rights, and voluntary exchange.
By what principle of capitalism does the state acquire the authority to confiscate property, dictate economic terms, or force one individual to provide for another?
Those powers contradict the very rights capitalism is supposed to protect.
Communists seem perfectly capable of understanding what PUBLIC ownership means, yet suddenly struggle with the meaning of PRIVATE ownership.
And calling me an idealist doesn't answer the question.
If a government violates capitalist principles, that's an argument against the government, not those principles.
You're confusing the existence of capitalism with the absence of violations against it.
@RockChartrand Under capitalism, the state can dictate the terms, confiscate property, and compel people to provide for others regardless of their consent as well.
You are just an infantile idealist who believes in utopias that don't exist and never have.
7
18
72
2,501