Is there a way to debunk pic related?
Ignore:
Words words words words words words words
Words words words words words words words
Words words words words words words words
Words words words words words words words
Words words words words words words words
Words words words words words words words
ain't no source. This could be pulled straight out of someone's ass.
Most of those country weren't communist in 1938 and no one ever justifies the 90's. There is nothing to debunk tbh, even if it was reals which i don't know, not only that but it actually shows how the reintroduction of capitalism didn't brought them at the same levels of other european countries
"lol okay"
setting your economy back 20 years to own the gommies :DDDDDDDDD
Muh sauces
No offense but literally worse than any ad hominem argument you could think of.
Stop posting any day you motherfucking retard.
This
No.
Faggot.
Look at where they started off compared to the West back in 1917.
GDP tells you very little about improvements in living standards.
You don’t need to debunk it unless you are some kind of ☭TANKIE☭. Very few people on this board support Soviet-type central planning.
This to an extent. Arguing is a lot easier when you aren’t an ML, since you can point to the obvious flaws of 20th century socialism and reject the policies that created them.
since you can point to the obvious flaws of 20th century socialism and reject the policies that created them
What anticommunists let you do this? I've never spoken to anticommunists who realize that leftism isn't a singular ideology and that policy choices were made in communist countries.
gdp is literally bourgeois
They don’t “let” me do it, I just do it. When they shriek about how the USSR was in practice a corrupt oligarchy I agree with them and tell them my solutions for avoiding that situation. This is usually followed by autistic shrieking and some vague platitudes about how whatever system I propose will still somehow end up like the USSR.
How is it bourgeois?
It isn't based on production or any material quantification, just the perceived value of everything produced. If you produce bolts for 5c a bolt, and then charge 15c for the same bolt, voila, you've increased your gdp.
That doesn’t make it bourgeois, just stupid.
In what way is a system that measures wealth not on what's produced but the perception of the value of what's produced (or even projected to be produced) not peak bourgeois
“Bourgeois” doesn’t mean “whatever I don’t like”.
Bullshit that is used to justify the bourgeois system is bourgeois too.
Are non-arguments bourgeois?
By saying that objective indicators of economic development are just “bullshit that is used to justify the bourgeois system”, you are effectively saying that capitalism is the most efficient economic system.
Kind of off topic, but finally found the old thread I was looking for in regard to the Soviet Union and GDP hollaforums.com
GDP
objective
indicator of economic development
objective indicators of economic development
Except gdp isn't an "objective indicator of economic development." It's a madeup bullshit number based on what people feel a country's output is "worth."
you are effectively saying that capitalism is the most efficient economic system.
Except not really, if not only because "efficient" is another meaningless term flung about by the bourgeoisie.
Very few people on this board support Soviet-type central planning.
2018
being a market cuck
my data says that communism actually lead to 1000000% gdp growth every second. do not ask for a source or that is ab blobinem
Soviet bureaucratic geronotocracy and markets are the only two options
There is nothing wrong with markets for goods and services per se, it is only markets for labour and capital that are problematic and should be abolished.
GDP is obviously not perfect, but it correlates reasonably well with the overall economic performance.
hey retards the problem with gdp isnt that it its inaccurate (its not), the problem is that it cant account for imperialism funneling resources from the periphery. india has a similar gdp to the uk but its per capita gdp is almost 20x smaller. wonder why!
Yes, but it says nothing about how people live in country. Look at productivity graph . What is benefit of having higher productivity if wages are low profits are taxed elsewhere? indicators such as GDP might correlate more with how people live if we'd live in some market-socialist regime.
bulgaria
even in the meme propaganda graph they were still better under socialism
also this. Because of neoliberalism, gdp is meaningless.
india has a similar gdp to the uk but its per capita gdp is almost 20x smaller. wonder why!
Because India lacks proper institutions like the rule of law and the separation of powers? It can’t be simply because of colonialism and imperialism since Ireland has a higher GDP per capita than Britain.
Read Capital anytime
If only someone had written a whole fucking book on this very topic. And then the text to that book was posted online for anyone to read for free.
marxists.org
Ireland is no longer under the boot of imperialism and is now, quite to the contrary, one of the primary beneficiaries of imperialism being a tax haven state.
I’ve already read it.
Low corporate taxes don’t make a country imperialist.
( ((World Bank)) )
Thought I was on /leftpol/ for a moment.
Hosting corporations that engage in imperialism and feed on imperialism means you benefit from imperialism. Just because Burgerland does all the heavy lifting in terms of maintaining the empire doesn't mean it's the sole beneficiary.
Is every wealthy country imperialist?
define "wealthy"
The first column is before those states were ever socialist. The second column is after the Soviet Union collapsed, which lead to a massive economic downturn. The statistics say nothing about the actual economic development of the Soviet Union.
what you are saying is true, I just want to point out that those countries were never members of soviet union
While it isn't necessary to engage in imperialism to have a wealthy countries, all of what we consider to be wealthy "developed" Western countries are imperialist, at least to the extent that they benefit from imperialism.
How does Iceland benefit from imperialism?
Most of Iceland's GDP is in the "service sector" (read: imperialism). Were you under the impression that some shitty little island in the middle of the north Atlantic maintained a significant amount of wealth through its fucking fish and aluminum exports?
Source for second picture?
I always knew something fishy was going on there
Thanks.
fucking over tourists is imperialism
Buddy plz
Financial services. They have a tourist industry, but it's not that big. Most of their GDP comes from financial services.
Which is to say "imperialism".
They still operate outside Iceland after they went international and crashed the economy?
I assume. Once again, I doubt Iceland is as wealthy as it is from its fish and aluminum exports.
According to Central Bank of Iceland, the financial sector shrunk to 6-7% of GDP, down from 9% before 2008. (Page 15)
cb.is
Their tourist number quadrupled in ten years to 1.3 million. That "services" includes all the restaurants and hotels, which aren't included in "tourism". Which accounts for 5% of GDP in direct contributions alone. The concentration and prices of those restaurants is absurd. Go on a vacation in Iceland, they will rape your wallet. Fucking fifty bucks for a burger and fries.
I would also assume it's because they have cheap energy (geothermal), because energy costs a shit ton of money.
"service sector" (read: imperialism)
Lmao
This is still them benefitting from imperialism. I doubt workers from the third world, or, hell, the first world are taking trips to Iceland. Porkies, fat on imperial loot, come to Iceland to further engorge themselves.
The service sector doesn't actually produce wealth, the wealth has to be coming from somewhere else, and it sure isn't from their frozen rock.
The service sector doesn't actually produce wealth
Flipping burgers and shuffling paper around doesn't produce wealth. Sorry. In a purely material sense, it's doing nothing. Hence your wealth must be coming from somewhere else if your own producive capacities are either insufficient or aren't being utilized because you have everyone flipping burgers and shuffling paper.
flipping burgers and shuffling papers is imperialist
wealth is created when human use their labor to create shit
imperialism, through military, legal, financial institutions etc exploits people who make shit in one part of the globe so that the ruling class and people of another part of the globe benefit from that labor and receive a disproportionate amount of the shit being made
we have a desolate frozen rock in the North Atlantic
most of its economy consist of people doing busywork that doesn't actually produce any shit
the shit they do produce isn't all that valuable
yet they still get tons of shit and are one of the wealthier nations per capita on the planet
gee, I wonder where they're getting all their shit from
