You're a Soviet railroad commissar. No markets. No prices. Just you and a mountain range between two cities. How do you decide where to build?
This simple question reveals why socialism always fails. 🧵
Through the mountains, you'd use less steel but massive engineering resources. Around the mountains, you'd use more steel but save engineering for other projects. Both steel and engineering are desperately needed elsewhere for irrigation, trucks, harbors, thousands of other uses.
To choose wisely, you'd need to know what millions of people know. What farmers know about crop yields. What grocers know about customer demand. What truckers know about delivery capacity. What families know about the meals they want to cook tonight.
You'd need surveys of millions. By the time you processed the data, it would be obsolete. Even if people could articulate their preferences accurately, which they often can't until facing real choices. Ludwig von Mises called this "groping in the dark."
Now imagine you're not a commissar, but a railroad CEO in a market economy. Your goal isn't "the good of the nation" but profit. You calculate costs: engineering hours × price of engineering + steel tons × price of steel. You choose whatever costs less.
Here's the miracle: By choosing what's cheapest for your company, you automatically choose what's best for society. Those market prices you calculated with? They contain the knowledge and preferences of millions of people you'll never meet.
When customers want better produce, they offer grocers more. Grocers offer farmers more. Farmers offer more for irrigation. Irrigation companies offer engineers more. The price of engineering rises, signaling everyone that this resource just became more valuable.
Prices aren't just numbers. They're a distributed intelligence system that coordinates billions of decisions without anyone being in charge. No commissar needed. No surveys required. Just voluntary exchange revealing truth.
This is why socialism always fails and why markets always win. But most college students never learn this. They graduate thinking prices are arbitrary, that central planning could work "if done right."
What if you could be different? What if you could walk into any economics classroom and actually defend free markets with real arguments?
FINAL WEEK TO CHANGE THAT.
Applications for Students For Liberty's 2025-26 Local Coordinator Program in the US and Canada close August 16th. This is your chance to become the student who actually understands how the world works and can explain it to others.
Ready to stop being the only libertarian on campus?
From progressive pulpits to college campuses to political debates, it’s a claim you hear everywhere today.
But what happens when we actually examine what Jesus taught versus what socialism requires? Let's investigate. 🧵
To answer this fairly, we need to define socialism clearly. Many people define it as "government giving free stuff" or "people doing good things for others."
Well, if that's socialism, then F.A. Hayek was a socialist—he supported some social programs and certainly believed in helping people.
But that's not what socialism actually means. Socialism is the concentration of economic power in government hands: central planning of the economy, state ownership of production, and redistribution of wealth through political force.
That's what Karl Marx commanded, and that's what his followers tried to apply across the world.
Now let's see what Jesus actually taught about these things.
Ludwig von Mises warned us 80 years ago: when governments start making individual "deals" with private companies, we're witnessing the transformation from capitalism to something far more dangerous.
The news about Nvidia and AMD giving the U.S. government 15% of chip sales to China? Mises saw this exact pattern coming. 🧵
In "Omnipotent Government," Mises identified a dangerous transformation he called "etatism."
Think of it this way: You still "own" your business on paper, but the government tells you what to make, who to hire, what prices to charge, and who you can sell to. You're a manager, not an owner.
Mises wrote: "The entrepreneur in a capitalist society depends upon the market and upon the consumers. Every entrepreneur must daily justify his social function through subservience to the wants of the consumers."
But when business success requires political deals, everything changes.
Everyone says their own country should be more like Sweden.
Bernie Sanders built his campaign around it. AOC points to it constantly.
But if you really want to "be like Sweden," you'd have to abolish property, inheritance, and wealth taxes, cut corporate rates, and privatize Social Security with individual accounts. 🧵
Here's what they don't tell you: Modern Sweden isn't socialist at all.
Sweden's "socialist" reputation comes from one brief, disastrous period in the 1970s and early 1980s.
Before that, Sweden became the world's fourth-richest country through laissez-faire capitalism.
Between 1850 and 1950, Sweden transformed from a desperately poor backwater into one of the world's richest nations.
How? Classical liberals led by finance minister Johan August Gripenstedt abolished guilds, tore down trade barriers, and deregulated markets. Public spending never exceeded 10% of GDP during this golden age.
In 1925, a top Soviet economist wrote something that would eventually cost him his life.
Nikolai Bukharin, Lenin's "Golden Boy" and editor of Pravda, admitted that Ludwig von Mises was right about socialism. At least for the historical epoch in which he wrote.
This is the story of intellectual honesty in the face of tyranny. 🧵
Bukharin wasn't just any communist. He was perhaps the only trained economist among the Bolshevik founders. He studied economics during his exile in Germany and attended lectures of the great Austrians, including Böhm-Bawerk.
Lenin called him "not only a most valuable and major theorist of the Party; . . . [but] he is also rightly considered the favourite of the whole party."
But Bukharin had witnessed something that shook him to his core. The Bolsheviks had tried "War Communism" from 1918 to 1921: pure central planning, just as Marx envisioned.
The results were catastrophic. By the beginning of NEP, the country was producing pig iron at only 2% of the prewar (1913) level, sugar at 3%, cotton fabrics at 5% to 6%.
The king had been deposed, a new republic was forming, and socialist ideas were gaining traction.
Politicians promised the State would guarantee employment, wages, education, and welfare for all, by force if necessary.
Into this chaos stepped Frédéric Bastiat, newly elected to the National Assembly. 🧵
Bastiat was already known for his economic writings, but now he was at the heart of political power.
While his colleagues gave passionate speeches about "social rights guaranteed by the State," Bastiat became one of the few voices challenging what he called "the legalization of plunder."
The idea that the State could take from some to give to others, as long as it was done through law.
"The law is perverted," Bastiat declared. "Instead of protecting natural rights—life, liberty, and property, it violates them. It becomes the instrument of plunder."
Even weakened by tuberculosis, he didn't back down. He took part in debates, wrote pamphlets, and delivered powerful speeches against the collectivist projects gaining ground.