Why are leftists so bad at managing economies?

Not even trying to be snarky, lefty myself here. You'd have to hide your head in the sand to act like lefty governments don't often end up mismanaged and overly bureaucratic. What do we need to learn?

Other urls found in this thread:

dalestory.org/LATINAMERICA/Chile/Allende/WhyAllendeFailed,Rosenstein,1971.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_management#Soviet_Union

OH FUCK IT'S SADDAM

Maduro's economy has collapsed due to the global fall in oil prices, combined with American sanctions. Allende's economy failed because both big businesses and the military sabotaged him at every turn.

Also, economic growth isn't a good measure of the economy. A better one would be how socialized the means of production are.

This, though in part. The government of Chavez is definitely partially to blame for ineffectively dealing with rising corruption and not distributing the oil funds into building of new industries and economic diversification. They set themselves up for a gigantic economic collapse, although to be fair, the prior governments did the same thing.

Allende significantly improved the Chilean economy pre-sabotage, so I agree with you 100% there.

That socialism in one country doesn't work.

Central planning is impossible without total computer integration into every aspect of a commodities life.
From base materials, to manufacture, to storage and distribution.

A trivial fact given modern technology.


That is a fucking retarded metric.
The objectively best measure would be based upon the quality-of-life of the population.

...

true but that doesn't mean that Allende made no mistakes

Of course, but what significant mistakes would you say he made?

dalestory.org/LATINAMERICA/Chile/Allende/WhyAllendeFailed,Rosenstein,1971.pdf

Look at China, Etheopia, Vietnam, the communist parties there know how to so capitalism better than most "dude free market" countries

That opportunism is cancer and a party without a serious ideological program that leads to socialism as its core goal will inevitably be taken over by red bourgeoisie. Venezuela is just one example.

I have not studied the PSUV in depth, but I would not be surprised if that party was in bourgeois cahoots since the beginning: not many years after gaining power, they started selling our oil industry to Americans, for example.

Because they are concerned with the "social justice", without particularly thinking it out, so all they can build is shitty version of social democracy forced to collapse sooner or later. Just look at that retard Chavez, he was trying to eliminate supply and demand(because it hurts the poor etc) by fixing the prices, but since Venezuela was embedded in the global market, the producers simply started exporting their products to their neighbours rather than losing money in the country, which caused le shortages.
Pure voodoo economy.

Too much ideology..


Like this guy said,
SJWism is a big thing for them but it demotivates people and hurts the economy.

Pic related quadrupled the industrial output of his society during the Great Depression.

Allende's biggest mistake was trusting Pinochet and not cleansing the military when he knew a coup was imminent.

>In the 1920s and 1930s, the Soviet Union enthusiastically embraced Fordism and Taylorism, importing American experts in both fields as well as American engineering firms to build parts of its new industrial infrastructure. The concepts of the Five Year Plan and the centrally planned economy can be traced directly to the influence of Taylorism on Soviet thinking. As scientific management was believed to epitomize American efficiency,[20] Joseph Stalin even claimed that "the combination of the Russian revolutionary sweep with American efficiency is the essence of Leninism."[21]

Because attempts at reformist socialism or social democracy are always imperfect compromises that never last. Capitalists recognize them (and rightly so) as attempts to thwart privatization, exploitation and the generation of profits, and so always resist and undermine reform. The stronger the reforms, the more resistance is encountered, until there's an assassination or an outright coup and a regime amenable to capital is installed.

Its kinda easy thing to do, considering that even imperial Russia was worlds second largest economy and 5th largest industrial power.

...

hi Holla Forums

God forbid somebody criticizes economic programme completely built around oil prices staying high.

Because they don't have civil servants skilled enough to make an economy works through planning. Even the USSR, with a very high level of education, didn't manage to produce civil servants skilled enough in sufficient numbers.

For now It appears that market socialism is the only workable socialism because you don't have to rely on civil servants for resource allocation and price searching (aside from niche issues like the military). As AIs develop planning may be able to replace market mechanism in parts or completely.

Why is it that every post that follows a weeb image is shit?

The other user was quoting Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_management#Soviet_Union
even if your a stalinist I don't see how that's controversial or goes against Stalinism.
Russia was bankrupted and devastated after the revolution and the wars. They had to get money and tools for industrialization somewhere.

What is stupid is the implication that Stalin importing tools from capitalists somehow makes him not leftist. It's the same "you complain about capitalism but use an iPhone" non-argument.

You just run out of other peoples money

...

Im glad youre only dating yer own butt-holes

Life for the average Chilean actually improved significantly under Allende.

...

as soon as they start to use cybernetic sciences and computer networking and have a non-despotic government the CIA coups them.

Stalin wasn't a leftist for completely different reasons.

I think you will find out who is the gaylord when you have a stump for a hand.

i am talking about Chile btw

then pinochet came a long with his 20% decline in productivity and 45% of the population below the poverty line and this is the world ancaps really want to live in, with a strong father figure who threatens to hurt them. It is no different than stalinists.

Irreverent pizza face.
He removed commie.

Because they try to outdo capitalists at capitalism instead of abolishing the law of value by abolishing private property, the state, production for profit, and money.

This

because marxists are fucking retarded

...

How does one abolish value?

1-1=2 apparently

Allende did nothing wrong and was fucked by falling prices and US evil. Also in the more general case proper leftists (i.e. not socdems) only take power in undeveloped countries that already have weak economies because capital is careless enough to let it happen. In the first world an insane amount of effort will go to stopping even a fairly moderate tory-lite Labour party winning elections, by comparison.

Also 1970s oil crisis + financial sector buggery = stagflation, full employment policies in the west did nothing wrong and TINA is a lie. But whether you count it as leftism is more open to debate.


smh tbh fam
probably wouldn't work but at least you'd go down fighting.


essentially true.


read MMT


But social democrats did outdo capitalists at capitalism, hence the higher growth and lower unemployment for the entirety of the Breton Woods period.

Then the financial sector fucked everything up. Whoops.

right, until social democracy stopped working. this is why you need to ban private property, ban production for profit, and ban money.

Social Democracy didn't stop working due to any inherent fault in what was done, but due to a few systematic technicalities. (all america's fault.)