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
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.
my data says that communism actually lead to 1000000% gdp growth every second. do not ask for a source or that is ab blobinem
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.
even in the meme propaganda graph they were still better under socialism
also this. Because of neoliberalism, gdp is meaningless.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.