Serious question to ML's: what are yout plans to run centralized state economy after gaining power in some region, and don't fall in the same mistakes and problems that occur in every state of 'real socialism'? Like:
- relatively low economic growth - permanent shortages in the delivery of goods - problems with the sanitary infrastructure (availability of public tolets, toilet paper, etc.) - high level of scientific and cultural development with the low level of availability of consumer goods leading to the emigration of professionals - creation of a management class who realizes typical petty bourgeois agenda
When has this cycle ever happened? The failure of the USSR was the end of their attempt at socialism; it was not reproduced at a later date.
USSR? Venezuela? Kerala? Any other state with planned economy? It occurs every fucking time.
Don't know, why did such unsustainable construct as the Soviet Union last that long rather then collapsing like in the late 1960s or so.
I see the effort to make AnNils the most mocked flag again is well under way.
The USSR hasn't returned to my knowledge. The other two aren't planned economies. It literally never happens, unless you subscribe to the extremely intellectual theory of 'socialism is whenever a left wing party is in power or the government does anything'.
An-nil is the worst shitposting flag of 2017
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
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.
only in the 80s
only in cuba, due to embargo
only in the 80s
gulag the revisionists
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?
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
simply No… it was one of the best thing in the soviet union after education