How does Leftypol justifiy the fact that despite Communisms best efforts to create an automated utopia...

How does Leftypol justifiy the fact that despite Communisms best efforts to create an automated utopia, they still fell behind perhaps dramatically so in comparison to the West.

East Germany for example, when it collapsed and united, was roughly 30 years behind the West and the economic strains on modernizing it continued well into the 21st century.

What went wrong? Why did the West outproduce and create better living standards than the USSR?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=EVmcp8WVbos
youtube.com/watch?v=8D6d6_-Vngo
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Bureaucratic planned economy a shit.
They never attempted anything of the sort. The bureaucratic class didn't even embrace the Internet because they were so scared of losing their power.

What could the USSR have done to correct this?
It seems their ultimate downfall was letting their citizens see the supposedly evil West be leagues ahead of them in every conceivable way.

Was it inevitable? Was it even possible for the USSR to be on-par with the West in terms of technology and plentiful markets without embracing Capitalism?

This


Giving the means of production to the workers

Can you elaborate, user? What exactly does that entail and how would it propel the USSR forward?

They singled out the market as the part of capitalism they want to abolish first, when it should be one of the last parts.

Do you think that if the USSR at its inception, adhering to true Communistic ideals as it should've, would've caught up or been able to competently compete with the United States for example?

In terms of agricultural and food proliferation, easily attainable non-necessary items, military prowess and the full package?

the elite chocked technological advancement in the name of protecting their sorry asses.

Planning Prodiction has proved itself to be a failure time and time again, they should have moved towards a market economy, like the Chinese reforms of 78

This pdf is good for understanding the term market socialism

...

or that they have beaten the USA in getting a man in space.

State Capitalism in the second half of 20th century was all about providing jobs to people. Automation removes jobs.

You know… Like Capitalism in the western world is slowing down progress, now…

But… but… we live in the best time ever! Everything is perfect and shiny!

It seems feasible that the only country even remotely capable of enjoying the true Communist dream is the United States. If we can somehow make our current wealth and system friendly to a more socialistic behavior. This is entirely theoretical of course, as Americans would never willingly do so atleast in the modern day. Maybe when Automation starts causing issues…?

youtube.com/watch?v=EVmcp8WVbos

why exactly this? Because they have the biggest army?

No Sir, but because its one of the few countries that could pull off being totally isolated from other nations. It pulled this off with relative success at the turn of the century, and as things modernize I firmly believe it could be a realistic option should it re-industrialize at home. Communism has little to do with the Army.

I firmly believe that if could pull this off it could realize the automated dream.

Well they were so successfull with their isolation because the Allies were throwing money their way to have the war demand met.

They weren't exactly isolated as far as economy goes.

All major economic powers can goo fullautomatedcommunism anytime they want. US, German, Japan, China, Emirates, all of them.

But none of them wants to, cause they'd lose their power!

(stop being americanocentric).


youtube.com/watch?v=8D6d6_-Vngo
When it's the same, except the state is now the corporation.

Could those nations really feed their entire population based off what agricultural capabilities they have at home? Whilst having more than enough to create plentiful non-essentials?

If you go fullautomation, why would it be any different?

Sure, you have to invest a lot into creating the machines. But after you do, why couldn't? Also, I don't think lesser nations would have much of a problem if the big one went and said "here, we'll build up your automation, you'll be taking your share and we'll be reinforcing our production so we all have enough".

Uuhhhh except it didn't

Except it did.
They litterally had to build a wall to keep Citizens IN the country. Its a popular consensus on Holla Forums that the USSR wasnt true communism.You can admit flaws.

what a load of bullshit
wessies destroyed eastern industry because competition, and then have a nerve to bitch about forever underdeveloped eastern germany

eat a dick

I'm sorry,what?
I dont think the West sabotaged East German industry. Moscow did. When your entire nation is fueld by an arms race you can expect shit living conditions. Remember the defections.

Have grace in the fact that East Germany was objectively the best Eastern Bloc country to live in.

yea, all those privatizations where western money bags bought factories for simbolic price and then moved them to west or simply destroyed them is sure not sabotage

choke on dicks

Not an argument.

Factories that would've been shut down anyway by the USSR, because State-owned industry was the only industry.

You just need to sell the Revolution properly.

Communism doesn't seek to create a Utopian society. Anyone who tells you otherwise simply isn't knowledge enough on the topic or are a Utopian Socialist, which is pretty much a long dead breed.

Communism at it's base is Materialist and Scientific. It is anti-idealist and anti-Utopian.


It didn't help that most of the world was actively trying to economically fuck over the Eastern Bloc for one. Also, the means of production should've been given over to the workers and the economy should've became jointly planned between the State, various administrative units, and every individual cooperative or Commune.

you really in love with that book

Even more relevant today with the current price of housing
I honestly don't care if I didn't even have internet by the year 2020, I just want to afford at least a one room apartment at this point

There's a nice couple Jacobin articles on the subject. In particular, I'd point you towards "The Red and the Black", which points out that while in no way were state-owned firms individually less productive than their capitalist opponents - hell, half the time they were actually better - as a whole planned economies were just bad at resource allocation and often crippled by bureaucratic infighting. It also had the problem of throwing good money after bad in firms that didn't perform well, because letting them fail was politically unfeasible even in "marketized" economies like Kadar's Hungary.

The model itself wasn't wrong, but the process for allocating resources needs worked. To that end, socialism would require some form of price mechanism in the short-term. Modern computer technology should also theoretically assist in determining rational allocation of resources, and a more open and participatory structure than that provided by the "people's democracies" would do a lot to prevent the nomenklatura and cronyists from getting strong. I also seriously doubt the utility of single-party politics after the revolution's victory, which was pretty much a universal object of faith among the Lenin-inspired governments. At a certain point, one has to acknowledge that the revolution is over, that a basic level of socialism has been achieved, and that a victorious people can be trusted to freely and fairly govern itself.

Teal dear: having a society where 33% of your people are spies and the state keeps everyone using typewriters so they can individually identify the print isn't always the best idea

This image made me vomit.

I can't remember where I read it, but the description of the resource allocation system was absolutely bonkers.

Basically you'd have the top of the bureaucracy issuing edicts on expected production goals for the coming year. These expectations would then filter down through each subsidiary branch of the production secretariat or whatever, down to each individual field office, with numbers being checked and estimates adjusted, then sent back up the hierarchy, going through the same process again in reverse. There's obviously more to it than that, but the process as described sounded intensely wasteful and byzantine.

When pitted against capitalist systems in a global, capitalist economy, socialism will inevitably fail given enough time whether it is anarchist or with a state. The corrupting influences of bourgeois ideology as well as capitalism's ruthless efficiency will outperform them if not just outright subversion.