Serious question to ML's: what are yout plans to run centralized state economy after gaining power in some region...

There you go.

There is no income growth in socialism, rather the currency becomes harder over time as more consumer goods are available
What are you talking about? Where did the USSR have shortage in the delibery of goods after WWII? It was true that not everything was available due to the Iron Curtain, but the goods that were available were adequately distrubuted
Literally never happened?
Which ones? Socialism isn't consumerism, you won't get to choose between 54 flavors of toothpaste
That only happened after the Kosgyn Reforms.

Venezuela and Kerala are not planned economies.

Because it exploited labor of subordinated states of the Eastern Bloc? And adapted imperialist conquest policy?

That is an insane claim, the Soviets invested more into the Eastern Bloc than got out of it, why do you think almost all socialist countries got shortage problems once the USSR dissolved??

For god's sake, please provide a source for that claim

But still, they've the same economic problems as other states of 'real socialism' what I listed in my first post.
Some people say that socialist economy leads a heoric fight with problems that don't occur in any other economy - and looking on examples of every one 'real socialist' state in history I can't say it's no true.

if you weren't a tard you'd notice the problem of such notions existing in USSR to begin with

Shortage problems were occuring all the time. Workers tried to strike to have bigger payments and were brutally pacified in every state colonized by Soviet capital. Continously, since 40s to 90s.

First off Kerala is India's showcase state with the highest HDI despite not being the strongest economy, so that's evidently false.

Venezuela has very differently shaped problems. It's oil is hard to refine, they are under economic sanctions, and refuse to collectivze the industry. It's a capitalist state. Many African states have similar problems, does that now mean they are socialist?

It's completely bankrupt, people are massively emigrating to capitalist neighboring countries. Kerala is total failure.

I forgot to add to my previous post.

Enough. Generally try reading a book, like Marx or Lenin

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/

marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/index.htm

How did them calculate a socialist country's GDP?

...

When I read a Marx or Lenin, I'll not need a toilet paper to shit?

Yes, in the metaphorical sense. You can use it to wipe away your shit for brains.

You will understand why the SU became shit.

not true

only in the 80s

only in cuba, due to embargo

only in the 80s

gulag the revisionists

the end

Even if that were to be true, they are no way near the intensity of the crisis in the 90s once the USSR was gone and COMECON collapsed. DPRK got a famine even, and Cuba almost got it. To claim that the COMECON was an imperialist tool to extort value out of the other socialist states is simply rubbish, nobody, even conservative historians believe this shit, can you please provide a source?
If you strike in a socialist state you are a wrecker. "Bigger payments" are you fucking serious? It's a carefully planned economy, you can't just go ahead and demand more payment then the other workers, that's literally just demand for gibsmedat, other people have to create the stuff first.
Marx, CotGP. AFTER the deducations have been made.
Where is the M-C-M' cycle kid?

It's the most developed state of all of India.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala_model

What is that supposed to say? You seem under the impression that the entire Eastern Bloc had a single system, while it was in fact quite diverse. Poland, for example, had more a market socialist system.

Read the attached

(you undestand, which kind of pic I wanted to attach)

Disproportion between capital goods and commodity goods seems to be common for all actively developing countries.

And now, if you suddenly isolate Western Europe, for example, it would be left with Siemes tourbines, but without cheap Chinese clothing, toilet paper, etc. So much for "Socialism with Chinese specifics"

It just seems to be a populist meme, it means nothing for this imageboard. It means something to Russia/Eastern Europe - I understand what you mean, the lack of commodity goods in this region is a topic - but here we just have too different conditions.

Still, how did they calculate that GDP in valuta? Seems like speculation.

They should take the marksoc pill.

Look in the short term I don't even care if it's a party delegate or a CEO telling what to do and what my salary is, I just don't wanna produce for exchange and profit anymore, it crushes my soul, it ruins my culture, it destroys art, it commodifies everything.

with communism russia became the second largest exporter of iron abd a nuclear superpower

pic related

simply No… it was one of the best thing in the soviet union after education

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Russian_innovation

this is a part of communism see soviets

Read Cockshott

Yeah, and now show the data from before 1950 as well. Eastern Europe was always poor and way behind Western Europe. The tankie regimes did not cause that issue.

I can sympathize with this feel. Listen to "My Life" by Phil Ochs. I think it's your vibe.

All the planned economies grow at a higher pace than capitalist ones. Just compare India and China between 1949 and 1976, or Western and Eastern Europe between 1945 and 1987.

That depends on the relation between production, demand and salaries, it's not a problem without solution and it also exists in many capitalist countries.

Venezuela doesn't have a planned economy.

Do you even know who send the first men and woman into space?

The people will be organized to remove those corrupt or capitalist-roaders, by force if needed. Read about the Cultural Revolution, for example.

The Cultural Revolution was immediately followed by total capitalist restoration. How can it possibly be regarded as a success in any sense?