Economic stagnation

What do you think of it? It seems to me to be an inevitability, at least until tech advances to the point we can escape this planet, as infinite growth is not possible. Most of the measures taken in the past to avert stagnation seem to have disastrous consequences (Gorbachev liberalization, Reaganomics). In a future socialist society, should stagnation just be accepted? Can society be trusted not to sacrifice economic equality for economic growth?

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

We have stagnation because of low profitability and therefore low investment
Profitability will continue to fall over time unless there's ww3
Then there are three options
Public investment replaces private in a market economy
Co-ops take over and invest despite low to zero profitability
Socialism

The options are assimng there is no ww3

That already failed in the USSR

The economic growth it saw was pretty good.

ftfy

until the stagnation

ftfy

Oh shit what? I have literally never heard of the USSR. I guess if it was tried and didn't work, I'll just become a technocrat or something

We don't have stagnation because we're running out of resources. We have low profitability and low investment. Even CEOs and bankers will tell you capital is having trouble finding good returns on investment in anything outside financial speculation

True.

...

He said we aren't hitting stagnation for lack of resources, but because the rate or profit falls as industries become more automated. In socialism, stagnation wouldn't occur due to lack of investment. The goal would be for inputs to be the same as outputs, for production to meet consumption.

Right, so why did it happen in the USSR?

because the USSR was state capitalism

It was still a planned economy. Tell me how "low profitability" or "low investment" are applicable.

After Kruschev reforms it was State capitalism. Before it was a degenerated workers state.


The state owned firms, they then sold the goods on an international market place or traded with other communist nations.

and?, what kind of retard thinks planned economy=socialism?

the nomenklatura as fucking retarded

cucked itself from global markets


nice meme

sold to buy other goods to use in their economy, i assume. still capable of being planned.


socialism == democratic control of a planned economy

wot

honestly I cannot give you any memepoints because this meme is fucking retarded

you could have taken it into another direction like "b-but market socialism is just capitalism" otr some retarded shit like that but you just proved to be unaware of basic theory

overall a shit meme

yeah, the nomenklatura, the ruling class in the USSR

Yet you also said


Not necessarily planned.

He means to say that the bureaucrats within the Communist Party mismanaged allocation of resources. It's why market socialism is the only true way to reach communism.

the USSR was always state capitalism with a centrally planned economy

No it wasn't. The Soviet worker councils controlled the firms.

I know what it is fagget your sentence made no grammatical sense


I'm aware there are exceptions.

Not exceptions. Different types. Market socialism is the most pragmatic solution till a computer can properly simulate a market.

you mean the Soviets councils that were expelled and prosecuted by Lenin even before the 1920s?

No. But the workers had a say in the lower level soviets.

1) It's either Soviets or councils. Soviet = council

2) Who and when exactly "expelled" and "prosecuted" Soviets? Is this Bergman nonsense about Kronstadt again?

Oportunist you mean, to be pragmatic you can't abandon your principles, and as market socialism contain all the contradictions of capitalim it will eventually turn back into it(USSR after Stalin, Yugoslavia) as the realations of production in markets socialism prevent the full development of the forces of production, or to better put it, you changed the superstructure but no the base, and to change the base you would need a planed economy.

And for anarkotrots saying that it was "state capitalism" in the Stalin period.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

Bureaucratic bloat and the fact that Gosplan wouldn't allow firms to fail in order to reconstitute and then redistribute the resources wasted in their functioning. Not to mention the entire economy was geared towards the production of war machines (heavy industry) at the expense of literally every other industry. And because of this, there was a huge black market which undercut the entire system, and fostered corruption, because it simply wasn't meeting peoples' needs, and it also ravaged the environment, if not on quite the same scale as global capitalism or even what's going on in China right now.

I really don't want to appear on the same side as the mustachioed shitposters around here, but it also makes no sense to call it state capitalism, because China is state capitalist but fully integrated into the global economy, while the USSR is supposedly the same kind of regime but remained an international pariah, excluded from the global economy except by trading resources for hard currency, exporting goods to Soviet friendly states, and so on. There were obvious qualitative differences between western states and the USSR which the state capitalist explanation doesn't address, like the lack of inheritance or private property, both supposedly cornerstones of any capitalist regime. I mean, the nomeklatura found a way around that to a certain extent by abusing their position, but not to the extent western elites were comfortable fraternizing with them and treating them as equals; certainly not to the extent of linking and integrating production like what has been done in North Korea even. The DPRK is allowed to do things the USSR wasn't, think about it; it's crazy to call it state capitalist.