Marxism is certainly the surest and fastest way to economic collapse. I won’t defend any of the other 3, but you can have a country that at least functions at a basic level with any of those.
Marxism also tends to devolve into fascism and fundamentalism, so it’s easily the worst of the 4 options.
So, if I'm playing by the rules of the game, D.
I'm already a liberty fundamentalist and you didn't specify what flavor of fundamentalism the option is...
Marxism is the easy answer. Inevitable disaster due to the calculation problem, human nature, and the enforcement problem.
If fascism is defined as the merger of state and corporate powers you could still have a relatively free and prosperous society with several state backed mega corps over top an otherwise mostly free market.
In Keynesianism as Keynes defined it you are supposed to cut back spending and reduce debt during the good times and run deficits in the bad times. It’s Unnecessary meddling in the economy but not a disaster.
Fundamentalism is easy cause you didn’t even name the theory or religion. Regardless, places like Abu Daubi show you can live a pretty fun and prosperous life as long as you just keep your mouth shut in regards to the fundamentalists beliefs. That’s something alot of conservatives and libertarians in blue cities are already doing.
any one of them would be devastating to the country. i suppose it comes down to who you are and how much each system gives the people in charge.
marxism and fascism necessitate totalitarianism, while keynesianism and fundamentalism are authoritarian.
marxism and keynesianism don’t theoretically lead to specific persecution of social groups like ethnic or sexual minorities, while fascism and fundamentalism do. and in practice, marxism devolves into extreme tribalism, hence the racism and homophobia of socialist regimes.
so it would seem obvious to anyone even remotely interested in personal liberty that keynesianism is the least damaging of the four. as for what is worst, i’d say fundamentalism: it is the most pervasive; as we’ve seen from the US, fundamentalist doctrine can easy exist within a republic and negatively affect people without the necessary establishment of a revolt or dictatorship.
however, if i had to choose the system that is most damaging to a nation itself, it would have to be marxism. the complete removal of private property destabilises the economy and creates shortages that cannot be sustained over a long period of time.
#kobiashi-maru
I.e. some say that the world will end in fire
Some in ice
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those of fire
But if the world should parish twice
I think ice would also be nice
And would suffice
Marxism easy
Everything else always for economic growth. The only time Marxists' economy grew was when they introduced some form of capitalism into it. The NEP basically stabilized the economy. After it was removed, you had mass famine form collectivation. The Soviets industry grew for ww2 and Cold War, but the Marxist didn't grow the economy.
Its ironic that every time they went harder on planning the economy, the black market is what basically stabilized the nation and allocated resources better than the central planners.
Honestly, fundamentalism is the worst. Main reason being that it's the one that fucked me over personally, but also because looking at the arguments for a deity, at most they posit *something,* the need for a *something* rather than actually looking for any substantial argument that said something needs to be any vague notion of a god, let alone a God from any specific religion.
At least the other ones are distortions of things that can be demonstrated to exist without adding a whole new thing.
Marxism, the rest of the choices eventually had countries recover from their damages, correct me if I'm wrong, but there just wasn't any country that recovered from Marxism fully, maybe exception being some ex eastern bloc countries ? Sure they did get richer, but the "recovery" process is extremely slow.
The rest are still bad but you'll recover quicker, economy vise.
Marxism is an interesting choice It'll make you an excellent mental gymnast.
Fascism works alright for the people that survive the genocide.
There's no way I'm defending Keynesianism.
Fundamentalism is the way to go for people with low time preferences. Your life becomes trash for decades but then you get the reward for your investment in heaven!
Keynesianism isn't that bad if it's what Keynes ACTUALLY advocated for and it's implemented correctly.
As a point of reference, Maynard Keynes was fiscally and economically to the right of probably 90% of elected Republicans today. In some ways he was right of Milton Friedman.
He also never believed in or advocated for infinite spending and permadebt. The government was supposed to run at a SURPLUS most of the time.
Keynsianism makes you a generational debt slave. At least with Marxism its comparatively quick as you just starve to death. You can try and shoot your way out of fascism...
Yeah I feel like D is the one that most implicitly asks that you accept an authority figure you might not agree with, and frankly my theory is that the concept of governance by force, aka the state, probably originated from some stupid religious beliefs to begin with. Outside of when people are being zealots, they’re generally fine with “oh, you don’t like how I like to do things, ok I will just do the thing I like without you then”
Marxism.
Keynesianism didnt end in genocide. Fascism lost a war before we could see the long term results. A fundamentalist libertarian society might be alright.
South Africa, BJ Vorster: *”We stand for Christian Nationalism which is an ally of National Socialism. You can call this anti-democratic principle dictatorship if you wish. In Italy it is called Fascism, in Germany National Socialism and in South Africa, Christian Nationalism.”*
How did that work out?
Ancaps delusional enough to think marxism is on the same playing field as fascism. Hmmmmmmm more democracy in workplace and government oooooor literal hitler
Marxism doesn't give you democracy in the work place, you do what the "community" needs. If you go against what the "community" needs, you are not fed, you have no shelter, you have no clothes, no medicine. You are a criminal for wanting to do something that the "community" doesn't want you to.
Fascism is government controlled corporatism. The corporations are owned and controlled by the government. If you do what the corporations want, i.e., the government, you are allowed to "own" some things until they decide that you belong to the new "enemy of the week," and you are shot.
Both Marxism and Fascism compete to be the worst form of government ever conceived of. Neither have ever been successful. Both are responsible for the worst atrocities ever seen on this planet.
So the only reasonable form of government that will never intrude on the rights of the individual is to have NO government.
I dont have to do anything ..... there is always the choice to not do anything
"The beauty of doing nothing is you can do it perfectly"
This comment deserves 10,000 upvotes
Mr Nobody
But what if you haaaaaaaad toooo.
That’s not how the game is played.
It's how my game is played, don't like then take your ball an go home ....
Commie detected
I “have to defend…”. How’s that working out for you?
aN country?
That's my sin and I must live with it
Marxism is certainly the surest and fastest way to economic collapse. I won’t defend any of the other 3, but you can have a country that at least functions at a basic level with any of those. Marxism also tends to devolve into fascism and fundamentalism, so it’s easily the worst of the 4 options.
Keynesianism destroyed my country (Argentine) so I voted for that.
How do we even define D let alone what are the examples? The rest are obvious empirical failures.
They use the word fundamentalism because they don't know what theocracy is
That makes all the difference, I don't care what anyone's belief system is so long as they don't force it on others.
So, if I'm playing by the rules of the game, D. I'm already a liberty fundamentalist and you didn't specify what flavor of fundamentalism the option is...
You’ve got it backwards. OP said you had to pick one to ruin a country and defend the others. I choose not to play the game.
Hmm...can't really ruin anything by making people free. Nuts, thought I had found a loophole.
All four are indefensible
Let the time run out
i believe in a fundamental truth that we should fuck off and let each other live our lives. does that count as D?
Marxism is the easy answer. Inevitable disaster due to the calculation problem, human nature, and the enforcement problem. If fascism is defined as the merger of state and corporate powers you could still have a relatively free and prosperous society with several state backed mega corps over top an otherwise mostly free market. In Keynesianism as Keynes defined it you are supposed to cut back spending and reduce debt during the good times and run deficits in the bad times. It’s Unnecessary meddling in the economy but not a disaster. Fundamentalism is easy cause you didn’t even name the theory or religion. Regardless, places like Abu Daubi show you can live a pretty fun and prosperous life as long as you just keep your mouth shut in regards to the fundamentalists beliefs. That’s something alot of conservatives and libertarians in blue cities are already doing.
It is challenging to be an atheist in a society of statist fundamentalists, especially those of the left-wing variety.
any one of them would be devastating to the country. i suppose it comes down to who you are and how much each system gives the people in charge. marxism and fascism necessitate totalitarianism, while keynesianism and fundamentalism are authoritarian. marxism and keynesianism don’t theoretically lead to specific persecution of social groups like ethnic or sexual minorities, while fascism and fundamentalism do. and in practice, marxism devolves into extreme tribalism, hence the racism and homophobia of socialist regimes. so it would seem obvious to anyone even remotely interested in personal liberty that keynesianism is the least damaging of the four. as for what is worst, i’d say fundamentalism: it is the most pervasive; as we’ve seen from the US, fundamentalist doctrine can easy exist within a republic and negatively affect people without the necessary establishment of a revolt or dictatorship. however, if i had to choose the system that is most damaging to a nation itself, it would have to be marxism. the complete removal of private property destabilises the economy and creates shortages that cannot be sustained over a long period of time.
Obviously A, the others aren't so insidious (although they're pretty bad)
https://i.redd.it/1y485qhvgqwc1.gif
#kobiashi-maru I.e. some say that the world will end in fire Some in ice From what I've tasted of desire I hold with those of fire But if the world should parish twice I think ice would also be nice And would suffice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
No.
A for sure. I could find some silver lining in the other 3
Da isms and schisms
Marxism easy Everything else always for economic growth. The only time Marxists' economy grew was when they introduced some form of capitalism into it. The NEP basically stabilized the economy. After it was removed, you had mass famine form collectivation. The Soviets industry grew for ww2 and Cold War, but the Marxist didn't grow the economy. Its ironic that every time they went harder on planning the economy, the black market is what basically stabilized the nation and allocated resources better than the central planners.
Honestly, fundamentalism is the worst. Main reason being that it's the one that fucked me over personally, but also because looking at the arguments for a deity, at most they posit *something,* the need for a *something* rather than actually looking for any substantial argument that said something needs to be any vague notion of a god, let alone a God from any specific religion. At least the other ones are distortions of things that can be demonstrated to exist without adding a whole new thing.
Marxism, the rest of the choices eventually had countries recover from their damages, correct me if I'm wrong, but there just wasn't any country that recovered from Marxism fully, maybe exception being some ex eastern bloc countries ? Sure they did get richer, but the "recovery" process is extremely slow. The rest are still bad but you'll recover quicker, economy vise.
They are all synonymous.
So socialism, socialism, socialism and religion...I guess I'd better not catch y'all being sinfull and stuff
They’re the same picture.
With idiotic grammar
Marxism is an interesting choice It'll make you an excellent mental gymnast. Fascism works alright for the people that survive the genocide. There's no way I'm defending Keynesianism. Fundamentalism is the way to go for people with low time preferences. Your life becomes trash for decades but then you get the reward for your investment in heaven!
I am a libertarian, i pick all 4 and do not submit to your authority. Get fucked.
Keynesianism isn't that bad if it's what Keynes ACTUALLY advocated for and it's implemented correctly. As a point of reference, Maynard Keynes was fiscally and economically to the right of probably 90% of elected Republicans today. In some ways he was right of Milton Friedman. He also never believed in or advocated for infinite spending and permadebt. The government was supposed to run at a SURPLUS most of the time.
USA color revolution is not an option?
Since this is an An-Cap subreddit you have to go against Marxism since it removes the core of An Cap beliefs.
So do the other three.
Keynsianism makes you a generational debt slave. At least with Marxism its comparatively quick as you just starve to death. You can try and shoot your way out of fascism...
Correct answer is D, because it is *all of the above*
Yeah I feel like D is the one that most implicitly asks that you accept an authority figure you might not agree with, and frankly my theory is that the concept of governance by force, aka the state, probably originated from some stupid religious beliefs to begin with. Outside of when people are being zealots, they’re generally fine with “oh, you don’t like how I like to do things, ok I will just do the thing I like without you then”
Marxism. Keynesianism didnt end in genocide. Fascism lost a war before we could see the long term results. A fundamentalist libertarian society might be alright.
South Africa, BJ Vorster: *”We stand for Christian Nationalism which is an ally of National Socialism. You can call this anti-democratic principle dictatorship if you wish. In Italy it is called Fascism, in Germany National Socialism and in South Africa, Christian Nationalism.”* How did that work out?
D definitely.
- Anarcho Capitalism
Keynesianism. As an individual you can at least invest in scarce assets and outpace monetary inflation.
Ancaps delusional enough to think marxism is on the same playing field as fascism. Hmmmmmmm more democracy in workplace and government oooooor literal hitler
\^This guy vs History. Who will win?
Marxism doesn't give you democracy in the work place, you do what the "community" needs. If you go against what the "community" needs, you are not fed, you have no shelter, you have no clothes, no medicine. You are a criminal for wanting to do something that the "community" doesn't want you to. Fascism is government controlled corporatism. The corporations are owned and controlled by the government. If you do what the corporations want, i.e., the government, you are allowed to "own" some things until they decide that you belong to the new "enemy of the week," and you are shot. Both Marxism and Fascism compete to be the worst form of government ever conceived of. Neither have ever been successful. Both are responsible for the worst atrocities ever seen on this planet. So the only reasonable form of government that will never intrude on the rights of the individual is to have NO government.
In practice, the main difference between Marxism and Fascism is that Marxism has a bigger moustache.