I always see people post this and say the USSR was rapidly growing, but if that's the case...

I always see people post this and say the USSR was rapidly growing, but if that's the case, why did living standards decline, and why did it collapse?

GDP is a poor way to measure a country's success.

The better question is why tankies define the success of their 'socialist' state in terms of its efficiency at capital accumulation.

Look you autistic fuck, there's no way to have a "socialist" state. Clearly global revolution isn't something that happens, so stop being a whiny little cunt in whichever threads you keep popping up in with your reddit tier semantics bullshit.

Just because you don't call it a spade doesn't mean it's not one. Faggot.

Faggot.

bump

Living standards declined and the system collapsed because they let the fucking capitalists back in. And whaddayaknow, when they did that, there was income inequality and economic instability, and it was over thrown by the new business elite.

marksucc has a point. GDP is basically just a measure of how much shit is going on in the economy. It has fuck all to do with what that shit is or who gets what shit. Burgerstan has the biggest cock GDP and look how badly its poor (bottom ~60%) are doing.

The USSR died when the referendum vote of 1991 was intervened. The USSR certainly needed a change of the economic model and policy, but not a structural change. It's safe to say that despite the declines and stagnation of the later USSR, it would certainly be preferable to Yeltsin's Russia

...

user I think the answer is that USSR was capitalist

I don't know what you consider "success" but GDP does a pretty good job of telling us how much value people are producing. That's the whole point of an economy right? To make sure that the people living in it are actually producing things to consume.
see above
what do you mean "what shit is"? it tells you how much exchange-value you're producing. obviously this exists independent of what those things actually are, but the fact that it has exchange value in the first place has to count for something, right?
are you saying the wealth distribution in Soviet Russia is comparable to the United States? I'm not some raging tanky who's trying to violently defend the USSR but the wealth distribution wasn't nearly as bad.

The point of an economy is to meet people's needs and do so efficiently. "We gotta maximize the profits/product/etc." is literally a utility monster.

this is why tankies have to screech read a book near fucking constantly.

Why is being called Reddit such an insult. I get the feeling it's mostly white burgers getting butt hurt, but still.
Is it like being called a basic bitch, or the n-word for NEETs

It's almost as if economic growth implies economics exist, which implies capitalism exists.

OK Mises

No, it's just that having economics is literally not Socialism. Economics is a part of the present state of things which is to be abolished.

Why do so many leftists define so many terms in such retarded ways? We use "State" to mean compulsory organization in a class society rather than compulsory organization in general, meaning we're without a word for the latter institution under communism. We use "nation" to refer to specific cultural entities spawned from political circumstances rather than broad, diverse communities in general. And here you're saying economics refers to the way resources are allocated under capitalism rather than the question of resource allocation in general. It's really frustrating, personally.

Besides the historic grievances of reddit being a content aggregator that watermarks images and a dipshit community that runs everything it touches into the ground, people will say that like tumblr is good only for porn, reddit is good only for local news. However, whenever you delve into the comments even there, someone makes a flippant comment or a vague suggestion, and some autist will always, without fail, pander to other autists for easy internet points by being an overly semantic dipshit and writing a tl;dr me-so-smart post deliberately interpreting the original reply in the most contrived way possible in order to make themselves look intelligent for le rational internet points. This seems like an oddly specific gripe but you will without fail see it everywhere if you were previously unaware of it.
An incredibly common form (but just one of many) of this is someone saying someone should be punished despite acting well within the law, and said autist then spending 40 minutes writing up a post explaining the law, the existence of which was never actually disputed.
This is why I associate being a pedant and missing the point with reddit, because it rewards people that do so and so they are everywhere.

another frustration: "capital" referring to the MoP and the currency used to exchange for it under capitalism rather than just the MoP

technically when most people say "economics" they're referring to what leftists would call "bourgeois economics", it's just common enough to use "economics" to refer to the mainstream field that it's not often worth the effort of trying to type bourgeois.


that's not just leftists. nearly all (bourg) economists do the same.

Marx had strange definitions because he was German and into Hegel. Leftists have strange definitions because they don't read Marx.

Also that's not what I'm saying about economics. Economics are merely Capitalist apologism, Marx was not an economist, merely someone who criticized political economy and described Capitalism as it actually is.