Are there any right wingers who actually argue against socialism instead of against their own misinterpreation of it?

Are there any right wingers who actually argue against socialism instead of against their own misinterpreation of it?
So instead of PragerU videos saying "socialism means slavery and capitalism means freedom"
or any random youtuber saying "socialism is a 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧sjw🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 plot to kill white people" etc, someone who actually knows what he's talking about?

Attached: fa80ef615d416c0641986743e4259684c3931b30.jpg (778x800, 150.91K)

if they knew what they were talking about, they'd be socialists/communists

I don't see why they would be right wing in the first place if they understood socialism (granted they aren't bourgeoisie or petit-bourgeoisie which just puts them in a position where they benefit from capitalism).

this, it is literally impossible to make an honest, informed argument against Marxism.

Redistribution of wealth is theft

Attached: prune brain.jpg (779x880, 39.87K)

Attached: 8yvcqurvzun11.jpg (490x586, 15.53K)

you get a vote in the government tho

Attached: 1528984117030.png (480x406, 117.66K)

...

this. never seen a single right winger argue against any branch of socialism (ACTUAL socialism) and at the same time know what they're talking about.

Probs a very small percentage that understand it and reject for it would deprive them of all their wealth.

Peak NPC.

Just because brainlets like you support socialism doesn't make it less theft

Well I guess there are some economists who argue against the LTV and such.

It's when the state takes your money, yes

if they use the shitty "dig a hole" analogy, it doesn't count.

How did you make this money?

go to the reading thread you unread liberal and stop making a laughing stock of yourself

Attached: no~.jpg (425x629, 39.13K)

The papal encyclical against communism is unironically one of the better arguments against marxism i've seen as i recall, not that its convincing in the slightest since its based entirely on spooky nonsense and provides no argument except blanket condemnation and saying 'catholics don't do this' but its detectable that Pius XI or whichever cardinal or priest wrote it had some basic familiarity with marxism which is very rare among critics of marxism.

I don't think you understand theft.

This is my experience as well. I used to think communism was retarded from watching Sargon of Akkad and browsing various boards but one day I realized I know nothing about Marxism and couldn’t even really define the terms “socialism” or “communism”. Then I started to research and here I am.

Attached: 8de.png (1198x1200, 756.79K)

post breakdown nick land?

Attached: What National Socialism REALLY is.png (1079x482, 452.34K)

yep, its fascism

Implying they got the wealth in a legitimate way in the first place lol

It's very rare currently because in the Western world, unironic anti-science views are no longer socially acceptable like they were in Marx's time.

It's a meme book but The Road to Serfdom is one of the best arguments against Socialism I've come across. All the best arguments come from neolibs rather than fascists.

Doesn't seem like he knew what socialism is

Why even bother asking for real arguments if you're just going to reject it based on the wikipedia summary… Did you learn what socialism was from Wikipedia alone also?

But if Hayek is too ~ideological~ for you you can read Foucault instead

Explain…..

Attached: sammy.jpg (800x800, 89.6K)

Of course

Attached: 45166173_10216373204259427_329711565433470976_n.png (942x960, 1018.26K)

Whoever does this in earnest is literally the devil.

pretty much. It actually irks me how there's no real criticism out there. We're in an age where humans have greater tools for high-speed communication than ever before, and even if my life depended on it I couldn't find a legitimate honest talking point.
I've made several threads on Zig Forums where I waste my time disproving all their parroted TPUSA arguments, but I usually just end up repeating myself multiple times in the same thread because none of them read before posting. they can't actually make any arguments for themselves.
the only rare case where I find that they can is in the framework of their own ideology. ie it being jewish and therefore bad, it being anti-fascist and therefore bad, it being egalitarian and therefore bad, it being athiest and therefore bad.
tl;dr The only real argument that can and has ever been made is that it's against the subject's own faiths. So basically it requires total renunciation of the sciences.

theory
practice

Attached: tohru.jpg (358x373, 41.96K)

You're kidding, right? Road to Serfdom is a teenage tier rant on socialism. I'm not even sure why it's among the most "respected" anticommunist books.

it falls apart the second you recognize that coercion isn't necessary for mass production.

No because right wingers are retarded. Not Socialists and Fascists argue against it because they are at least 120 Autism Level ubermensch. READ GOTTFRIED FEDER

ironically this, if you wholeheartedly embrace religion (made up stuff) as the basis of your philosophy, then you can make a pretty well-structured argument against marxism

There's plenty of real criticism, from Marxists. One of the many reasons people NEED to read theory. A vacillating liberal is going to adopt "socialism" and then go back to liberalism because he has no concrete idea of what's being debated, while a Marxist who reads is likely to change tendencies, develop their positions, and deepen their knowledge over time.
The idea that you need to look outside of Marxism for serious criticism and debate is clearly laughable.

If only our reactionary friends knew about how nature gave birth to reason and reason itself is what sets the compass of what is beyond humans and what is not - our incompetence is owed entirely to lack of useful reasoning when we act. No problem for them, of course, because they take stands AGAINST reason.

OK but how? Hayek's objection seems a lot more devastating when you realize that socialists have been trying to square the circle since before Marx and there is still no consensus among socialist theoreticians on how to achieve a socialist production on an industrial scale without restricting individual freedom. All the arguments on this board and beyond are about this one central point.

Why does there need to be? Economics are a soft science, it is not like trying to solve an equation.

Because it's the fundamental question of how socialism would actually function. This is the difference between anarchists, Leninists, Bookchinites, DemSocs, Market Socialist and every other flavor of leftists. These are irreconcilable and mutually exclusive positions and we don't actually know which one of them is correct, or if even any of them are. Anyone who says they know how to achieve mass production without coercion is a liar, and I include Hayek in that category. He was a liar and a hypocrite.

Based Nietzsche already blew the fuck out of marxism.

...

but then there's the breed of "socialistsm is impossible because humans", nevermind that the implication that human brain is capable of hypercomputation would be quite bold an a proof would shake the foundations of computer science.

this being said, I like reading classical economist, at least these guys have a clue.

pottery

Attached: Socialism is the morality of the master.jpg (1489x261, 126.76K)

not really though, because marxism has nothing to do with postmodernism

If you mean Marxist theory (which is the highest theoretical justification for socialism that has been developed in human history, for our socialism is built upon the doctrines of Communism which ultimately rest upon Marxism for theoretical legitimacy - while it is an upside-down affair for popular legitimacy), then there are many theorists who think they can stand up to the Marxist tradition and dismiss it using blends of liberal 'FACTS and LOGIC' and outright mysticism. In the former camp we find nutcase formalists like Popper whose criticism of Marxian theory is that it does not live up to the standards of formal logic rather than merely that it can't be thought of as a science because it is not empiricist in its epistemology and therefore rests on empirically-unfalsifiable claims. In fact, all that 'dialectics' is for them is a shoddy formalism which only serves as propaganda and not as a tool genuine scientific insight, because the only way in which they can conceive of anything 'dialectical' is through a formal framework with all the assumptions that come with formal logic and nothing else, hence of course 'dialectics' requires unbelievably-sophisticated theoretical machinery to justify if it can be done at all. In the latter, we have the unashamedly and overtly religious, who either appeal to esoteric scripture or whatever shortcomings the 'logic' squads of the former camp have. We find the absolute worst of both the Analytic and Continental schools of the post-19th-century Western tradition here - people who call on us to 'work within our limits' as they obfuscate what can be known and dissolve it into things like 'postmodern' subjectivism so that it disappears beyond the world of what can ever be known.

Dunno, maybe read the stuff that the Actual Fascists wrote down.

They all read Stirner, Proudhon, Marx, and etc.

Never wrote any debunk of Marxism or it's economics/politics outside of Socialists are actually JEWS KILLING WHITE PPL
Never wrote any debunk of Marxism or it's economics/politics outside of vague HUMAN TRIBALISM AND VIOLENCE IS WHY SOCIALISM DOESN'T WORK.
Aktually Socialism doesn't let the individual grow because if you can't employ workers and steal their labor people won't go to work because of HUMAN NATURE

Literally every fascist ""debunk"" is fucking retarded and resorts to the same muh human muh natural hierarchies despite Communists not even ending human social hierarchy in terms of popularity.

The closest criticicism would probably be bashing central planning and muh bread lines or the berlin wall. Also that the LTV is pseudoscience.

There are other theorists who have had a punt at it through a few polemics. One is reminded of Kolakowski, of course.

Attached: 1539163365951.jpg (960x712, 62.9K)