What does Holla Forums actually think of the USSR/Stalinism?

It improved the quality of life for a lot of people and smashed fascism. props for that.

overall 6/10
might state capitalist again

tell me how workers can control the means of production when industry havent even developed yet?

It was a putrescent, festering boil on the ideological body of communism.
And its stench will pervade the political discourse for decades if not centuries to come.

Lenin died before the USSR had fully developed Capitalism. This practically ended any chance the USSR had at achieving Communism. Let me explain.

Lenin was not always an Authoritarian person. In fact, when he wrote his April Theses, he was similar to Rosa Luxemburg in many regards. However, he became more Authoritarian after he took power. While an Anarchist may think the power corrupted him, it is important to factor in the material conditions. Russia was going through a massive Civil War, which made the country incredibly unstable. Using force to stabalize things was absolutely justified if they wanted to secure a position of power.

Russia at the time was also a semi feudal country. Capitalism had not fully developed, meaning you had a massive illiterate peasant class. You need to allow Capitalism to develop in order to have an educated proletariat class. After all, you can't have a functioning democracy if the people cannot read. However, by the time Capitalism developed, Stalin had taken power. Stalin's government was incredibly beurocratic and innefective. They had toilet paper shortages. A simple algebra equation could tell them how much toilet paper they needed to produce, but they couldn't do that. It was because of this and the fact that the people on power lived much better off than the proletsrist that ensured the state would never wither away. The state became beuroctatic and corrupt.

Now, I will give Stalin credit for one thing, the industrialization that he did is something that could have only hapoened under him. If Lenin lived longer or if Trotsky took power, I highly doubt tne industrialization would have happened as fast as it did. This doesn't negate all of the problems with Stalin's central planning though.

Tl;dr Lenin was based, fuck Stalin

you sound like a massive fedora

Cmon now

Porky would demonise communism either way. The USSR had a net positive effect.

He's right tho.
Even most leftists think socialism=government.

it had no choice, and democratic centralism is probably more democratic than the bourgeois "democracy" we have right now. the only thing the USSR was lacking was a citizen-ran organization to look over the vanguard to prevent corruption

Because they're social liberals and not leftists.

My gott, pure hideology

What the USSR was lacking was the spreading of the revolution, unfortunately the material conditions weren't right and revolution in Germany failed. There was no hope for socialism if isolated and not expanding.

They aren't leftists then.

Western """"leftists"""", not even once.

The planned economy that existed from the mid-30's to the end of the 60's stands as an example of socialism. Any unbiased person familiar with the personalities of Stalin and his closest associates (Zhdanov, Molotov, Kaganovich etc. etc.) will understand party policy was largely dominated by Marxists and they constructed the economy accordingly. The state defended common property rights as the bourgeois state does private property. It may have been a "total" state but it nonetheless made sure there was no commodification of labor or the means of production. These are not the actions of a bourgeois state, you can see the actions of a real one in it's last few years when most of the party openly pushed for a market economy. Why didn't they do this earlier if Stalin was really an anti-communist? The state-capitalist hypothesis won't take you very far if you want to understand Soviet history.

But people don't actually analyze production modes or the relations that define them when they brand the USSR as capitalist, they just state the obvious fact that the USSR was not democratic. But if democracy over the MoP is the defining feature of socialism then where do we draw the line? Even the USSR had elections and some modest democratic rights so if popular control is the sole defining feature of socialism then the Soviet state fits perfectly. Obviously the USSR was more oligarchic than democratic but my point was wherever you draw the line would be a meaningless distinction, it cannot serve to explain what separates capitalism from socialism. And that is common property vs private property relations over production.

Note that I'm not necessarily trying to defend the USSR here, (though I often do) I'm just trying to get people here to acknowledge it for what it really was.

Read the thread. Most "socialists" here buy straight into the propaganda of Western plutocracies, seeing the USSR and the Third Reich as examples of totalitarian horrors unique from the crimes of liberalism.

Uhh most third world movements are M-L or M-L-M. The west is where you find most anarchists and left coms. You're jab at "western leftists" is pretty off base.

Has anyone read this book? What do you think about it?

kys

/thread

Anybody that thinks the Soviets weren't genuine in their attempt at socialism hasn't read their internal communications. The vast majority of party members spoke to each other in the language of revolution, privately and officially. Why would disingenuous people put on airs in their private communications?

Whether they were misguided or overzealous I think is up for debate.

For me thats the rather horrifying part about Stalinism, the Stalinists were not secretly anti-communists doing bad things to wreck the name and idea of socialism but precisely did their deeds in the name of constructing socialism.

It was shit for a lot of people, but it did manage to turn Russia into a global superpower. If it had been less authoritarian and had the advantages of modern computing technology for central planning, it could have turned out a lot better.

Basically Stalin was a bastard, but not all of his ideas were entirely terrible.

Socialist planning wasn't the problem. By the end of the 60's the central planning system had been totally scrapped after a series of "reforms" making enterprises the primary decision-makers instead of the Stalin-era industrial ministries. Central planning worked fine, under it from 1950-1965 the USSR sustained an average annual growth rate of 3.4% compared to the USA's 2.3%. The real economic problems stemmed from the anti-communist political degeneration taking place within the party that dismantled that system. We don't have to compromise here with our enemies at all. The failure of the late Soviet economy is just another failure of capitalism, it has nothing to do with us. During it's socialists years the economy was immensely successful.

I also don't take any great issue with you calling Stalin a bastard but we still need to place his actions in a context not recognizable with the standard Western Cold War line. For whatever his mistakes, not all of Stalin's popularity was state-manufactured. A man at the head of a government that constructed an industrialized socialist state from a feudal-capitalist sinkhole then led said nation of former peasants to victory in humanity's largest conflict must have been doing at least a few things right. The Stalinist system was harsh, but it's difficult to see how any other alternative could've held the Soviet state together. What I'm saying is that although trying to prove Stalin was a saint is a lost cause, trying to prove he was a genocidal autocrat that massacred millions on a whim is nothing more than a cowardly concession to capitalism.

You got some reading material for me comr8? You're dangerously tankie but I need to learn more about how the USSR actually functioned.

This tbh

As an anarchist, I am not a fan.

Hold on, I have a few texts on me. For starters you can read this and watch an hour of this video if you have time for a basic debunking of some generic myths.

youtube.com/watch?v=uPY0O3HN3rA

Anti-communist sources but still useful history.

Kalecki was right.

They could've listened to him, making the appropriate changes to the soviet economic system and continue to develop socialism.

But, no. Can't let the western propaganda win, Kalecki is a capitalist pig!

Geoffrey Roberts' text "Stalin Wars" is also recommended. It's hardly a Marxist work but it is a remarkable piece of actual history in stead of generic anti-communist dogma. I'd also recommend "Farm to Factory" from Robert C. Allen and threw in Mao here as a bonus.

If you were wondering about any details of the Soviet system you could just ask /marx/.

How's Kotkins stuff on Stalin?

Other user here,

I thought it was good. Very detailed, with various sources and so on.

He even did a talk with Zizkek awhile ago about the books.

By failing to eliminate the distinction between surplus value producers and surplus value appropriators, the USSR from Stalin onward effectively had a state capitalism. The system of exploitation remained while the private capitalist was merely replaced with a state official. Naturally, this breeds corruption, and is what inevitably led to the collapse.

Lenin himself admitted before his death that what they had achieved was a state capitalism. Stalin implemented no further attempts to collectivize workers after his death–instead he proclaimed that they had finally achieved "socialism" and the mission was accomplished.

The USSR was a step into the wild unknown. It was a first. It was the first major power to unite under the flag of all men are created equal, in actual practice.

It failed in many respects. But Western nation's who judge it by propaganda for its genocide, forget they too, are founded on oceans of blood.

Stalin Ruined Everything

t. Leninist

Shite

It was not "lets gas all the jews" bad, but Stalin sure was trying his best.

Wut?

Not only that, they actively stamped out any attempts by the workers themselves to collectivise, such as with the farmers' soviets during the revolution.

You think so? Because I sense a completely opposite trend. One where even any association with policies that are in any way related to the Soviet Union is considered taboo and should immediately be ejected from left-wing circles, and that playing the "I hate the Soviet Union even more than you do!" card is how socialists try to legitimize themselves to liberals.

I personally think that it's the inevitable outcome of trying to create socialism on the basis of a) lack of capitalist and development and b) a fixed location isolated from most global economic activity. But I agree with the analysis of Parvus, Trotsky, Lenin and so on in the sense that the middle-classes were not capable of bringing liberal, democratic capitalism into Russia so a revolutionary approach was necessary.

Pretty much this

M8, planned industrialization at the expense of the peasantry was Trotsky's idea.

Fuck off tankie, Grover Furr is literally the leftist version of a holocaust denier.

reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/4ne4i8/why_does_the_pseudoleft_hate_grover_furr/

...

youtube.com/watch?v=gfdnbMd9BiE

I think:
they were state-capitalists.
they were not as bad to live under as the US propaganda made them out to be.
the US is more a surveillance and police state now than the USSR was.
they had a shot at achieving (not just building towards) socialism (communism would be much further off)
they should have pushed more consumer goods
they shouldn't have played so defensively
the bolshies fucked things up by fucking with the soviets since before the revolt ever began

overall: moderately negative opinion

Stalinism is fascism in the name of communism. Even Mussolini praised it.

This

Soviet iconography is funny because a lot of people can't grow the fuck up and accept that the Cold War is over.

As far as the USSR's actual politics go, Stalin was a total bastard, but ultimately I think Russian history made a dictatorship inevitable. It would not have been a hippy dippy liberal capitalist paradise if the Bolsheviks lost.

really it depends on how you look at things

if you believe that the ends justify the means then stalin was a pretty cool guy due to him keeping the USSR stable in a time when the world was in a massive shitstorm

if you believe that the ends don't justify the means then stalin was a dickhead that killed a lot of people

nikita khrushchev was the best USSR leader

I disagree here, the Soviet Union was never nearly as bad as the US said it was, at least for the majority of citizens, but man, the Soviet government loved it some surveillance. It was far more intrusive back then, too, because no mass communication.

To be fair, though, Soviet citizens mostly hated it. Americans rationalize and defend it.

...

State Capitalism - They had wage labor, commodity production, twofold value character, institution of enterprise and institution of nuclear family.

Culmination of capitalist democracy - Workers didn't have any political or economic decisive power but they were presented that they live in 'democratic people's republic', or 'worker's state' or 'dictatorship of proletariat'

He was literally the firestarter. He literally allowed the bourgeois to form by moving production from quotas from the government to profit.

The 'firestarter' was Lenin with Nep

Here's a quick guide that should clear up those spooks of yours:
Did workers own the means of production -> Yes -> It's defensible
Did workers own the means of production -> No -> It's indefensible

Soviets won.

Why only certain? In most cases Soviets were right.

Like what?

I see only an overwhelming tendency of self-declared leftists to distance themselves from USSR (and Stalinism) in each and every aspect, sometimes going to ridiculous lengths to do so. People actually defending Soviets at least partially are sparse, to say the least.

This looks like a strawman and probably is. Especially if one takes into account vague accusations of "destitute policies" that preceded it.

It's not like "normies" would even listen without this baggage.

I draw a line at the end of 50s. Granted, Socialism persisted after the destruction of Soviet co-ops, but i wouldn't call it "example" at this point.

The right to recall you elected representatives at any time is pretty huge.

Not really. First and foremost, Stalinism is economy (planning, yes). What you are calling Stalinism is simply infighting between many factions of CPSU.

I.e. there was no Grand Master Plan at work. People should take (often ridiculous) accusations of treason with a grain of salt. Most of those were excuses, not actual opinions. Realpolitik all the way.

You really should read something beyond regurgiated propaganda.

Lenin defined Socialism as a state capitalism that was controlled democratically %%(and, therefore, no longer capitalism)%%.

P.s. Word "tankie" is a sign of brainwashed imbecile, who is unaware of even basic facts about USSR. You can't simultaneously be a Stalinist and support Khruschev. Those factions were at each other throats before any "tanks" happened.

So Stalinism isn't firstly characterised by it's mechanical materialism, insistence on a monolithic party, paranoia about wreckers and saboteurs which lead to purges and reliance on realpolitik than on proletarian politics but characterised by central planning? pssh

We are no longer in the 50's and 60's anymore and the meaning has changed. I think this is a good definition of tankie (from a Maoist):

"Let’s break the term “tankie” down into three distinct, yet often overlapping, political positions. First the historical meaning of the term. The historical tankies were the ones who supported Khrushchev and his “sending in of the tanks” (hence the origin of the term tankie) into Hungary. Since this use of the term refers to a specific historical event that is no more relevant today than one’s position on whether one supported the Roundheads, it’s pointless to use tankie in this sense against a political opponent today. Secondly, tankie can be used to refer to all those who supported the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc as “actually existing socialism” throughout their entire existence. This of course is another historical specificity, although still somewhat relevant today with those so-called communists that uphold Cuba and the DPRK as “actually existing socialism”. However, this is not the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist position. The Marxist-Leninist-Maoist position is that “actually existing socialism” was not socialism but state capitalism and therefore that there are no socialist countries existing today. Thirdly, tankie, as it is used by Marxist-Leninist-Maoists in its most applicable form, denotes those communists who embrace a positivist interpretation of historical materialism and the transition to communism, i.e. the only thing that matters when considering if socialism exists is the economic factor (is there state owned property and a planned economy). The political and transformative aspects, which assume a place of primacy according to Maoists, don’t matter to tankies. Based on these three usages, which cover all relevant uses of the term, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is indisputably not tankie."

Stalin was a great leader during emergencies, because harsh leadership is exactly what is required during hard times. Now, just look what was going on when he was ruling - restoring the country after Civil War, building industry, fighting in WW2, restoring country after WW2. He probably wasn't a great leader for when everything was going fine, but he himself realized this and was even trying to retire late in his life. Still, he left the country with big reserves to build upon, and it took three incompetent leaders and 50 years to bring it down. If he was succeeded by someone not retarded (i.e. Beria), then Soviet Union would've actually became successful.

С харкачика пришел, бро?

Stalin was arguably a great capitalist leader indeed.

...

I really don't understand. It should be easy to convince white people to stop quasi-hating white people.

Very few of them are getting paid. Tim Wize is the only "anti-racist white ally" who racks up a killing. This trend confuses me because it goes against human nature. Strange.

Не он, но харкач та еще дыра.
После того как украина набросила говна на вентилятор политические темы там обсуждать проблематично.

А эта борда вроде ничего, тут хотя бы нет дочек офицеров.

пицца

You mean the guy that liked to kidnap moscow women and rape them? No thanks.

back to /marx/ please…

Tell me Holla Forums, is it possible to completely denounce the USSR post-lenin without turning into an anti-communist?

Except that never happened, and it was all made up by some anti-Soviet writer whose name I forgot.

I don't get this "maymay".

Have you even read Lenin's "The Tax in Kind"? He was the one who called the NEP State Capitalism

and so on.

It's a good read, I recommend it.

Beria was just as retarded as Stalin was. Probably even worse.

The best thing to ever happen was Beria not save Stalin, letting him die in his own pis tbh.

ZHUKOV DID NOTHING WRONG, LET THE HEADS OF THE STALINISTS ROLL DOWN THE HILL

And what does it have to do with anything? NEP was dismantled by Stalin.

Stay mad, faggot.

And doomed the whole Soviet Union with his decision. Turns out that forced collectivization is not a good policy.

And then they complain about Trotsky.

Zhukov was a Marxist-Leninist who later defended Stalin in his memoirs, he was completely aware of how ridiculous Khrushchev's outlandish slander was. The army was driven towards Khrushchev's anti-communism by their refusal to accept the necessity of some of Stalin's actions but that doesn't mean they were IMF bootlickers like yourself.

Apparently accelerating urbanization by increasing grain shipments to the cities somehow doomed the USSR. I'd love to hear you explain that to me, you certainly didn't put much effort forth here.

Forced collectivization was a necessity, as industrialization required all funds that Soviet Union could possibly get their hands on. What really did the Soviet Union in was the Khruscschszhev's retarded decision to completely ban all private business that still existed in USSR in form of artels, instead of doing the opposite.
"BOO-HOOO-HOOO! HOW DARE YOU TO DEFEND BERIA? I'VE READ SOMEWHERE THAT HE WAS RAPIST! RAPIST, YOU HEAR ME? WHO CARES IF HE WAS GOOD AT LEADERSHIP AND CARRIED OUT MASS AMNESTIES AND REHABILITATIONS, SOMEONE TOLD ME HE WAS BAAAAD, BAAAAAAD."

This is what you sound like.
You mean that faggot who was planning to throw Russia under the bus for his pipe dream of le world rivalushn xdddd?

I don't doubt for a second that Soviet intel was much more intrusive in people's lives but I think the US' intel gathering is much more blanket and widespread.

I mentioned Zhukov for his actions to stop Beria taking hold of any political power. I didn't mention him because of Stalin. Honestly, my only problem with Stalin are only the show trials and the break up with Tito.

Accelerating urbanization…. In the 20s? Never-mind the decrease in grain production, or the famines it provoked.

Also,
marxists.org/archive/shachtma/1932/06/9yrslo9.htm marxists.org/archive/shachtma/1932/07/9yrslo10.htm

"Necessity". The train of history doesn't exist.

Great leader. Everyone loved him. Zhukov was right about taking him out, tho.

Let's call ourselves "Marxists-Leninists" and ignore the whole part about internationalism, both of CAPITAL and the struggle against CAPITAL, in both Marx and Lenin. And I'm not even a trot.

Sounds good, tbh. Sign me the fuck up.

Fucking Tankies and their saint Stalin.

Just as a compliment to the Tankies

Kalecki was right. And both, Stalin and Khrushchev, knew it - and both ignored him.

And thanks to that, he is now forgotten.

I'm begining to think that there is a golden rule in economics, but noone is using it cause it'd mess up with the status quo and profits.

Check'd.

And yes.

polite sage

USSR was capitalist, wether you like it or not. Marx made it very clear socialism will be moneyless, which USSR was not. Stalin himself had to confess the law of value operated in his book "Economic problems of socialism in the USSR".

it was much more like fascist italy than it was like communism
but at the same time it was lockstep with how imperialist russia was, in other words the veneer of the ideology did not change the country as much as it could

There are still many stalinist defenders of the soviet union but I never understand how some modern day stalinists like Grover Furr still think the accused at the show trials were actually collaborating with Fascism and foreign imperialist powers.

left commaustism strikes

I love how many leftists keep defending the USSR, even if the Cold War was won by the USA decades ago, like they can't accept that the 20th century styled communism is dead and can't be brought back. I like how this thread is made on America's Independence Day.

The USSR was fucking retarded. In a state where you have Lysenkoism, getting gulaged or shot because you talked to the wrong guy, and tanks rolling in Czechoslovakia, what kin of progress can you expect?

At least they won WWII but they could have done that without Stalin.

However I think the way it was dissolved into all of these small states was disastrous, and the modern Russia is pure reactionary cancer.

What are you talking about? Materialism in Marxism is dialectical, not mechanical. It's right there, in the word: >>>Dialectical

Someone's still teaching children creationism.

US managed to surpass the infamous 1937.

As of 2015 (post WWII, because civilized nao):

1946: Iran, Yugoslavia
1947: Uruguay, Greece (-1949)
1948: Germany, China (-1949), Philippines (-1954)
1950: Puerto Rico
1951: Korea (-1953)
1953: Iran
1954: Vietnam, Guatemala
1956: Egypt
1958: Lebanon, Iraq, Panama
1960: Vietnam (-1975)
1961: Cuba, Germany
1962: Laos, Cuba (again)
1963: Iraq
1964: Panama
1965: Indonesia, Dominican Republic (-1966)
1966: Guatemala (-1967)
1969: Cambodia (-1975)
1970: Oman
1971: Laos (-1973)
1973: Arab-Israeli, Chile
1976: Angola (-1992)
1980: Iran
1981: Lybia, El Salvador (-1992), Nicaragua (-1990)
1982: Lebanon (-1984)
1983: Grenada (-1984), Honduras (-1989), Iran
1986: Lybia, Bolivia
1987: Iran (-1988)
1989: Lybia, Virgin Islands, Philippines, Panama (-present)
1990: Liberia, Saudi Arabia (-1991), Iraq (~2003), Kuwait,
1992: Somalia (-1994), Yugoslavia (-1994)
1993: Bosnia (-present)
1994: Haiti
1996: Zaire (-1997)
1997: Liberia, Albania
1998: Sudan, Afghanistan
1999: Yugoslavia
2000: Yemen
2001: Macedonia, Afghanistan (-present)
2002: Yemen, Philippines (-present)
2003: Colombia (-present), Iraq (-2011), Liberia
2004: Haiti (-2005)
2005: Pakistan (-present)
2006: Somalia (-present)
2008: Syria
2009: Yemen (-present)
2011: Lybia (-present)
2014: Iraq (-present), Syria (-present)

...

Your bait is weak. Step up, user.

Are you counting only military intervations or coups as well?

For one, you forgot Greece 1967 - 1973.

Get the fuck off this board you revisionist fuck.

MFW leftist faggots were so weak and pathetic they stole high meme culture from the far-right.

MFW you literally can't do anything about it other then whine and shitpost

You mean the reeeeeeeeeee meme Holla Forums stole from /r9k/?

Wow, great. Rare pepes all around. Donnut stel pls

But it really was fascist but instead of making race its religion it made class its religion. As well, it was also corporatist. It nationalized corporations and took the means of production away from workers.

There are many ideas and there are many of them that are shit.

Lenin was a psychopathic murderer.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror

KYS

You worship and grovel at the feet of a goddamn mass murderer!

liberals pls go

this isn't just regular autism

this is anarcho-autism

northstarcompass.org/nsc9912/lies.htm

departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1936toc.html

Bakunin was right about muh states but still soviet union makes me feel proud to be left. Here is a little song that i wanted to share.
m.youtube.com/watch?list=LL1mgeeZTHj78Y64mrzPuXMQ&v=zgKazTrhXmI

Just in case link doesnt work.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=zgKazTrhXmI

You'll change your opinion on one of these issues eventually. You can't be an anarchist and have a positive view of successful revolutions.

I used to be marxist leninist. I spent my youth learning from the hardliners. Now days i like to consider my self half way anarchist or libertarian socialist. But all the years i have spent pondering about Soviet Union it seems that the dictatorship state is the reason why it failed. The proletarian had nothing to say about how things should be done. It was the party elite and a certain psychopatic dictator.

No shit. But a despotic state was quite literally the only option on the table at the time for anyone who wanted socialism. That is unless you just think the SR's, whites, or the other bourgeois factions were just going to continue the revolution without the Bolshevik party's leadership.

You need to keep in mind Marxism-Leninism and Libertarian Socialism don't actually refer to separate political systems, there never has been any libertarian or Leninist model for an economy or state. The former is just a statement that you will adapt to any conditions in order to make a revolution succeed, the latter is that you will only support inept loser "revolutionaries" like Allende or Chavez.

It was authoritarian socialism, and even then it was authoritarian socialism done badly. It can fuck right off.

I'm more for anarchist leaning things, libretarian socialism, democratic Confederalism, mutualism.

Yes. When Gorbachev attempted to become dictator.

It wasn't socialism but I somewhat wish it was still around if only as an ideological counterweight to the US.

...

jacobinmag.com/2012/12/the-red-and-the-black/

It's not specifically about Soviet economics but he does talk about the nature of economic planning in the USSR and there are links to pdfs of studies done on the soviet and post-soviet economies of the Eastern Bloc

tl;dr the soviet system on an industrial level was just as or in some cases more efficient than its western counterparts but inefficient planning at the top and a failure to anticipate the needs of its citizens hampered its ability to provide both the goods required and the goods desired when needed

anecdotally, I had a friend working in a fiber glass factory a couple years ago in the eastern US that was still using East German fiberglass mills (Deutsch gauges and all) that were still in tip-top shape.

Perestroika worked perfectly, as intended. It's just some fools didn't understand that they were no longer people, but workforce. Real people are living better than before. I.e. misson accomplished. Hopefully, not that will not last and we'll get to deal with the real people traditional way sooner rather than later.

"Soviet system" never existed.

Even if we don't include War Communism/NEP/Gorbachev reforms, there was Stalinist economy and Khruschev-Brezhnev economy. Two very different animals. It's a clear mistake to lump them both together and pretend that there is no difference.

> jacobinmag.com/2012/12/the-red-and-the-black/
Since author talks about post-WWII, I assume he is talking about Kruschev-Brezhnev system.

I'll comment relevant high points:
Correct.

Reason for the fall of Second World is political, not economical. Any analysis that tries to do it via economy alone is doomed to fail. Which is exactly what happens later, when author attempts to fit square peg into round hole, thinking that twisting it harder than the previous economists did, will be enough.

False. Stalinist economy had non-state enterprises (co-ops). In fact, significant part of Soviet electronic goods (pre-war TV sets) was produced by those enterprises.

Situation changed in late 50s, when Party went full revisionist (pardon for meme, but that was actually the case) and nationalized co-ops, greatly limiting private initiative and giving birth to this "prevailing presumption". I.e. even USSR for more than half of it's existence did not fit this description of planned economy.

Someone went full retard.

First and foremost - anyone anywhere can seek resources. The question is whether or not he will obtain any. Yes, that's semantics, but it's exactly the question of obtaining resources that author skillfully avoids. Is this truly the case? I'm not certain.

Second problem is the (false) assumption that planned economy has only one single authority and getting refused by it means the end of the story. There is no "veto" (unless we are talking really high investment cost - which will collapse situation tosingle veto in any system). There are dozens of institutes and semi-independent organizations that might decide to fund the innovation or test it. Competition is actually a thing in a planned economy. Constant underperformance will eventually bring attention from (populist) government and hidebound administrator will soon find himself reassigned to Kamchatka. On the other hand, success means promotion.

As a result we get completely wrong conclusion that clearly contradicts reality. See below.

We are talking about USSR that went from medieval and war-torn economy of Imperial Russia, got through embargoes from technologically advanced nations and WWII, but managed not only defeat Reich, but also get Sputnik and Gagarin.

That's clearly not a constantly higher rate for free market.

> The ultimate answer was the absence of a capital market. In a market economy, a troubled firm can sell part or all of its operations to another firm. Or it can seek capital from lenders or investors, if it can convince them it has the potential to improve its performance. But in the absence of a capital market, the only practical options are bankruptcy or bailouts.
This is part when you simply need to stop. There is no point reading further.

Either author has absolutely no idea how planned economy works (and is therefore incompetent to make any judgements) or is deliberately misrepresenting situation (and is therefore a propaganda mouthpiece unworthy of attention).

Thanks for the material, comrade. I've quite enjoyed reading this.