Communism debate nuance edition

[Glowie]

did agree that communism is rather difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. This isn't because of self-sustainability, but because of the inherently egoistic human nature.

It's both, communism defies human, nature, use of resources and their management. Planning to implement cashless and classless system that is inherently inequal, unemployed and untrained people do not produce any labor, same for pensioners, children and the disabled. Who and what quantifies value? Answer is no-one, since system is classless there isn't a centralized government give value for labor, distribute it and what goods are worth X amount of labor. Which leads to inequality.
Take for instance is labor of someone who manages policies and practices of entire city to someone whose job is to kick pebbles off the side of the road.

What do you propose which goods are worth quantified labor which have subjective value and contribute to communist economy.

Communism works only in theory, in any given setting communism will fall flat on its face for multiple reasons.

Whole thing collapses on one simple question: what is labor worth, what type and who quantifies it?

The reason unions exist in the first place is to fight problems caused by the "western free market democracies". If the needs of the people were met better, there would be no need for such unions in the first place, yet here we are.

My point was Unions do not exist in communist system who quantifies "fair" amount of labor, work hours needed to gain labor and guarantees for safety nets in case if someone is incapable to contribute to labor pool, which creates drain on finite goods, available services and resources.
For instance prescious metals like gold, silver and palladium or rare earths like cobalt, uranium and others. According to communist theory anyone with unspecified amount of labor can hoard limited amount of resources to himself and you stated yourself communism cannot confiscate personal property. What is stopping Jimmy the pebble kicker becoming the resource baton of the communist utopia where all labor is equal and laborer can essentially put entire economy in a deadlock?

I actually agree with your stance and was misled by your original post.

You weren't misled, you just didn't understand it.

Another basic problem Communism can't overcome is the economic calculation issue. Without a market mechanism, there is no way to properly value inputs and outputs and determine the relative demand for and value of different kinds of labor.

Even without a centrally planned economy, that will lead to waste of scarce resources and underutilization of abundant ones, and misallocation of labor leading to unemployment where it's not needed and shortages where it is. I can't think of a way you can balance supply and demand without a market (or state-controlled rationing), and you can't have a market without profit and loss on goods and services.

I couldn't have said it any better.

 

[StealingElectricity]

Another basic problem Communism can't overcome is the economic calculation issue. Without a market mechanism, there is no way to properly value inputs and outputs and determine the relative demand for and value of different kinds of labor.

Even without a centrally planned economy, that will lead to waste of scarce resources and underutilization of abundant ones, and misallocation of labor leading to unemployment where it's not needed and shortages where it is. I can't think of a way you can balance supply and demand without a market (or state-controlled rationing), and you can't have a market without profit and loss on goods and services.

A communist country can develop plans in which the budget is distributed accordingly to different sectors. This was actually a strategy that was (for lack of a better example) used in countries from the Eastern Bloc, where they made plans for the period of 5 years ahead(petoletki) and it worked for the most part.

It's both, communism defies human, nature, use of resources and their management. Planning to implement cashless and classless system that is inherently inequal, unemployed and untrained people do not produce any labor, same for pensioners, children and the disabled. Who and what quantifies value? Answer is no-one, since system is classless there isn't a centralized government give value for labor, distribute it and what goods are worth X amount of labor. Which leads to inequality.
Take for instance is labor of someone who manages policies and practices of entire city to someone whose job is to kick pebbles off the side of the road.

What do you propose which goods are worth quantified labor which have subjective value and contribute to communist economy.

Communism works only in theory, in any given setting communism will fall flat on its face for multiple reasons.

Whole thing collapses on one simple question: what is labor worth, what type and who quantifies it?

The questions you pose at the bottom are quite vague and lack a lot of meaning behind them, so I'll tackle them one by one.
"What is labor worth"? Well, according to capitalism, labor is evaluated using currency. Currency is just an object that we collectively decide to give value to in order to measure the value of labor. Strip it away from context, and it is worth nothing. Labor itself, however, is consistently needed. Labor is the thing that brings food to the table, with or without being evaluated by currency. So why can't we give other types of royalties to the people who work more demanding jobs without them necessarily being monetary? Financial stimulation isn't the only stimulation in existence.

"Who quantifies it"? Labor can be produced by everyone with the ability to work in whatever regard; the key here is to have everyone working. When everyone is actively working, the government will gain more resources to work with, which will, in turn, help everyone out.

My point was Unions do not exist in communist system who quantifies "fair" amount of labor, work hours needed to gain labor and guarantees for safety nets in case if someone is incapable to contribute to labor pool, which creates drain on finite goods, available services and resources.
For instance prescious metals like gold, silver and palladium or rare earths like cobalt, uranium and others. According to communist theory anyone with unspecified amount of labor can hoard limited amount of resources to himself and you stated yourself communism cannot confiscate personal property. What is stopping Jimmy the pebble kicker becoming the resource baton of the communist utopia where all labor is equal and laborer can essentially put entire economy in a deadlock?

Of course, there will be some limit as to what can be acquired; there should be some sensible need. There is no case for someone to need a lot of uranium if they aren't building a nuclear weapon, so it wouldn't make sense to allow people to purchase a lot of it.

You weren't misled, you just didn't understand it.

Possibly.

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

A communist country can develop plans in which the budget is distributed accordingly to different sectors. This was actually a strategy that was (for lack of a better example) used in countries from the Eastern Bloc, where they made plans for the period of 5 years ahead(petoletki) and it worked for the most part.

The situation I described is exactly what brought the planned economies down in the end. Economic complexity increases exponentially along with technological advances, which means more and more difficulty matching supply and demand for each individual input and output.

Not knowing how much something should actually costs means resources wasted because there is no incentive to conserve them.

To produce something like steel or tools isn't too difficult but airplanes and computers are a whole other animal. And on top of that more consumer goods - TVs, radios, washing machines, refrigerators. The Soviets did produce all of these goods but the planned economy disincentivized efficiency and technological advances.

 

[Glowie]

communist country can develop plans in which the budget is distributed accordingly to different sectors. This was actually a strategy that was (for lack of a better example) used in countries from the Eastern Bloc, where they made plans for the period of 5 years ahead(petoletki) and it worked for the most part.

I thought eastern bloc wasn't real communism, both five year plan failed miserably ending in holodomor and poverty. Kolhoz system and commie blocks turned to slums

questions you pose at the bottom are quite vague and lack a lot of meaning behind them, so I'll tackle them one by one.
"What is labor worth"? Well, according to capitalism, labor is evaluated using currency. Currency is just an object that we collectively decide to give value to in order to measure the value of labor

This is about communism not capitalism, what this collective value in communism? You seem to avoid the question, since you can't give value to subjective value that is supposed to be exchanged to goods. Labor and services were given objective value what services and labor in worth. Moreover gold and oil backed currencies provide measurable value for currency for goods and services. Cashless society is labor backed economy and can't be traded outside it's own economy. That bring said why you're avoiding questions which communism seemingly has solutions for. You're the expert in true and honest™ communism, you should know direct answer instead avoiding the questions with "Well communist government will develop plans" what are these plans you keep mentioning? You don't exactly know do you?

course, there will be some limit as to what can be acquired; there should be some sensible need. There is no case for someone to need a lot of uranium if they aren't building a nuclear weapon, so it wouldn't make sense to allow people to purchase a lot of it.

I thought system was classless society limit aqusition of goods brought with labor is personal property which won't be controlled by the state, what is stopping Jimmy the pebble kicker building nuclear power plant and build a plant and get immense amount labor by providing necessity that is electricity? I thought communism was thought to encourage Laborers.

 

[StealingElectricity]

The situation I described is exactly what brought the planned economies down in the end. Economic complexity increases exponentially along with technological advances, which means more and more difficulty matching supply and demand for each individual input and output.

Not knowing how much something should actually costs means resources wasted because there is no incentive to conserve them.

To produce something like steel or tools isn't too difficult but airplanes and computers are a whole other animal. And on top of that more consumer goods - TVs, radios, washing machines, refrigerators. The Soviets did produce all of these goods but the planned economy disincentivized efficiency and technological advances.

I disagree; the reason the USSR fell was mostly because of the formation of the petrodollar and mass propaganda on the side of the USA(not that the USSR didn't have propaganda, but the USA did it better).

I thought eastern bloc wasn't real communism, both five year plan failed miserably ending in holodomor and poverty. Kolhoz system and commie blocks turned to slums

The Eastern Bloc wasn't real communism, but we don't really have anything else to go off of, right? The five-year plans worked; they did not end in holodomor. In fact, during the late 1970s and early 1980s, the diet of a citizen of the USSR had about the same calorie intake as that of an American but was more nutricious.

This is about communism not capitalism, what this collective value in communism? You seem to avoid the question, since you can't give value to subjective value that is supposed to be exchanged to goods. Labor and services were given objective value what services and labor in worth. Moreover gold and oil backed currencies provide measurable value for currency for goods and services. Cashless society is labor backed economy and can't be traded outside it's own economy. That bring said why you're avoiding questions which communism seemingly has solutions for. You're the expert in true and honest™ communism, you should know direct answer instead avoiding the questions with "Well communist government will develop plans" what are these plans you keep mentioning? You don't exactly know do you?

I'm not sure what this "collective value" is you pull out of nowhere, but here is the most direct answer I can give to your earlier question: Currency is used to encourage people to work under capitalism; communism won't need them since the way people will be awarded for their work is using other types of privileges. That way, there won't be a need for currency because everyone will have access to whatever necessities they may need, which will encourage people to pursue better careers.

I thought system was classless society limit aqusition of goods brought with labor is personal property which won't be controlled by the state, what is stopping Jimmy the pebble kicker building nuclear power plant and build a plant and get immense amount labor by providing necessity that is electricity? I thought communism was thought to encourage Laborers.

And it is made to encourage the working class! I just don't imagine anyone being encouraged by a life-time supply of copper, aluminum, or really any other raw resource.

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

I disagree; the reason the USSR fell was mostly because of the formation of the petrodollar and mass propaganda on the side of the USA(not that the USSR didn't have propaganda, but the USA did it better).

There were deep structural issues with the planning system that were never fixed and whose problems were apparent well before the rise of the petrodollar. Khrushchev tried and partially succeeded but he ended up making his own mistakes and was ousted before more radical reforms could be implemented.

A case in point - Kosygin wanted to retool Magnitogorsk in the mid-1960s to replace its outdated open-hearth mills with modern conversion furnaces. Brezhnev shut it down because he didn't want to spend the funds and miss the quotas for steel and pig iron production, and rolled back other reforms because they threatened central control of the planned economy.

This of course meant by the late 1970s the plant was producing cheap, impure junk steel that nobody wanted outside of the Comecon. MMK almost went bankrupt after the collapse of the USSR but was ultimately saved through good business management practices and state funding once Putin had the resources to do so.

All these factors combined meant the Soviet Union was 20-30 years behind capitalist countries by the 1980s. The plant and equipment was similarly neglected and ancient because of the focus on building new plants vs. replenishing and improving the capital stock of existing ones.

 

[StealingElectricity]

There were deep structural issues with the planning system that were never fixed and whose problems were apparent well before the rise of the petrodollar. Khrushchev tried and partially succeeded but he ended up making his own mistakes and was ousted before more radical reforms could be implemented.

A case in point - Kosygin wanted to retool Magnitogorsk in the mid-1960s to replace its outdated open-hearth mills with modern conversion furnaces. Brezhnev shut it down because he didn't want to spend the funds and miss the quotas for steel and pig iron production, and rolled back other reforms because they threatened central control of the planned economy.

This of course meant by the late 1970s the plant was producing cheap, impure junk steel that nobody wanted outside of the Comecon. MMK almost went bankrupt after the collapse of the USSR but was ultimately saved through good business management practices and state funding once Putin had the resources to do so.

All these factors combined meant the Soviet Union was 20-30 years behind capitalist countries by the 1980s. The plant and equipment was similarly neglected and ancient because of the focus on building new plants vs. replenishing and improving the capital stock of existing ones.

Agreed! Those sets of inadequate decisions also contributed to the fall of the USSR, but I do think that the large market control of the US played a large part in it as well.

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

Agreed! Those sets of inadequate decisions also contributed to the fall of the USSR, but I do think that the large market control of the US played a large part in it as well.

I think it was that plus the fact that the market mechanisms present in the US and other capitalist countries could provide data (and capital) to businesses quickly and reliably vs. the planned economy, which was always operating on a one-year lag at best. The USSR had a brief edge in computer technology in the 1950s but it never invested in this outside of the space program and military applications.

Could a fully integrated national computer network with real-time data shared across all enterprises have allowed the planned economy to work? I honestly don't have an quick answer to that, something similar was tried in Chile before Allende was removed via coup but never got off the ground.

Pricing for resource and labor inputs could have been derived under this system from end demand at retail stores combined with a profit-and-loss model for state enterprises and free competition for labor. It could still be insulated from capitalist-style markets through the USSR's social welfare mechanisms.

 

[BirdUp]

Could a fully integrated national computer network with real-time data shared across all enterprises have allowed the planned economy to work?

even if you had a computer network that could sort through an entire population's surveys, you could only make one-size-fits-all decisions on supply, and the enterprises would have zero incentive to tread on unexplored territory

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Oh no 2% off, since you didn't provide sources here's a paper proving that 40% of USSR lived in poverty see attachment. Where's your sources by the way?

>cites source
>"where's your sources"
LMAO that's proof you aren't reading these papers and sources you're posting.

If you think the USSR was a communist country, you are lying to yourself a lot. The same goes for CCP. The main purpose of communism is to abolish class differences by giving the means of production to the working class; no single country in history has done that.

And the so-called "capitalist" West isn't really a capitalist society since the government regularly intervenes in the market to make it not subjected to supply and demand, plus in some cases the government itself owns the means of production. Just because the Soviet Union or Cuba or Maoist China didn't actually give the means of production to the working class doesn't mean they aren't a communist society. Communists really like to use this

economists confuse people by making this so abstract
more concretely, it is impossible to decide what needs higher supply without millions of people offering various things and seeing what billions of people buy the most, because sorting through surveys of an entire population is impossible and making people line up for bread is impractical

It may be a lot more possible in the future as supercomputers advance. Just look at the powerful computers and algorithms used by marketing firms, hedge funds, etc. Communist countries like the USSR and Allende's Chile used early computers and cybernetics to help plan the economy to relative success, but the computers in that era were ancient, expensive, and the experiments never really entered full force because the limited numbers of computers manufactured were usually earmarked for the military or other purposes, not to mention you wouldn't want to put the central planners themselves out of a job.

But I still doubt that we could successfully centrally plan an economy of millions, if not billions of people. We could get very close with sufficiently powerful computers but there would still be noticeable inefficiency. And besides, ultimately it's fairly stifling and some level of capitalism is always going to be both needed and beneficial. Basically 1950s US with its unions and government programs rather than the Soviet Union.

 

[StealingElectricity]

And the so-called "capitalist" West isn't really a capitalist society since the government regularly intervenes in the market to make it not subjected to supply and demand, plus in some cases the government itself owns the means of production. Just because the Soviet Union or Cuba or Maoist China didn't actually give the means of production to the working class doesn't mean they aren't a communist society. Communists really like to use this

Very incorrect. The point of communism is to give everyone common ownership of the means of production in order to remove class separation. The USSR was never a communist society; the same goes for the CCP.

 

[BirdUp]

The point of communism is to give everyone common ownership of the means of production in order to remove class separation.

letting everyone own everything is antithetical to socialism where a few bureaucrats control everything in the name of "society" or "the Workers"
pure capitalism—where the public mixes their labor with preexisting things and create new things to trade with eachother, not cronyism where people use their connections to leverage themselves off policies—is public/collective/communal ownership of the means of production

 

[StealingElectricity]

letting everyone own everything is antithetical to socialism where a few bureaucrats control everything in the name of "society" or "the Workers"

What do you mean by "letting everyone own everything"? Are you insane? First off, the idea is that the people have something called common ownership. This means everyone has the same access to basic needs. There are also differences between private and personal property. Private property is basically the means of production; it is everything that can be used to manufacture an object that has monetary worth. Then we have personal property, which is the personal possessions of a given person, and those aren't public.

pure capitalism—where the public mixes their labor with preexisting things and create new things to trade with eachother, not cronyism where people use their connections to leverage themselves off policies—is public/collective/communal ownership of the means of production

This assumes everyone has something to contribute to the capitalist market and has money to engage in trade, which isn't guaranteed.

 

[BirdUp]

Private property is basically the means of production; it is everything that can be used to manufacture an object that has monetary worth. Then we have personal property, which is the personal possessions of a given person, and those aren't public.

the difference between private and personal property is abritrary and created by communists to hide the fact that communist states confiscate people's possessions
there is no difference between someone clearing out a patch of woodland to build a factory and someone clearing a patch to build a home, because in both cases they mixed their labor (woodcutting) with natural resources to create something new

First off, the idea is that the people have something called common ownership. This means everyone has the same access to basic needs.

this literally means "the collective" owns everything, which boils down to self-proclaimed representatives of the collective deciding how property should be managed

 

[StealingElectricity]

the difference between private and personal property is abritrary and created by communists to hide the fact that communist states confiscate people's possessions
there is no difference between someone clearing out a patch of woodland to build a factory and someone clearing a patch to build a home, because in both cases they mixed their labor (woodcutting) with natural resources to create something new

"Personal property" and "private property" are linguistic terms used to describe very specific things. A communist state won't confiscate all of the people's possessions; it will only collect the means of production from companies and give them to the people.

this literally means "the collective" owns everything, which boils down to self-proclaimed representatives of the collective deciding how property should be managed

In an actual communist society, a representative can't be "self-proclaimed". There isn't even going to be a need for representatives, but even if there are, they will be appointed by the people.

 

[Free the Pedos]

Is @Free the Pedos really a Pedo?

A reasonable question. It's actually a ridiculous speculative pub name put forward in a British TV show:

https://youtu.be/LNWDdcVA79c?si=bYfEBITuCuv2UoHf&t=22

 

[Glowie]

>cites source
>"where's your sources"
LMAO that's proof you aren't reading these papers and sources you're posting.

Sources were foryou to read, look at that number there it has been one at the time you were posting, since opening pdfs is scary for my little guy there's always screenshots. I know it's scary and you cannot use JSTOR to get research papers with your bachelors degree credentials.

Three sources providing same figure with proof I night add, wages listed, cost of living per city, consumption of goods and mention of Soviet black market

Just look at that 55 work hours to earn 200 Russian rubles, workers in Washington had to work 5 hours for their their wages, also Russian ruble was bit Shit

Question is why you didn't download and read the PDF, by now it was once or twice at this point and it was me.

What is your excuse now?

And the so-called "capitalist" West isn't really a capitalist society since the government regularly intervenes in the market to make it not subjected to supply and demand, plus in some cases the government itself owns the means of production.

I don't know concerns over environment, overproduction, pollution and market saturation. For instance intervening with strip mining and fracking that pollute and destroy the environment. Regulations exist for a reason In order to prevent companies and individuals to sell unsafe products, prevent incompetent workers to work in any specific field. Controls exist to prevent chaos and instability. Furthermore.

The purpose of economy regulations is to ensure fair and efficient functioning of markets, protect consumers, promote competition, and prevent market failures. Some specific purposes of economy regulations include:

1. Protecting consumers: Regulations are implemented to safeguard consumers from fraudulent or deceptive practices, ensure product safety and quality standards, and provide recourse in case of unfair business practices.

2. Promoting competition: Regulations aim to prevent monopolistic practices, anti-competitive behavior, and market concentration. They foster a level playing field for businesses, encourage innovation, and ensure that consumers have access to a variety of choices at competitive prices.

3. Maintaining market stability: Regulations help prevent excessive volatility and instability in financial markets, ensuring the overall stability of the economy. They may include measures such as capital requirements for banks, restrictions on risky financial activities, and oversight of financial institutions.

4. Protecting public interest: Economy regulations are often designed to protect public interests such as environmental sustainability, public health, and safety standards. They may involve regulations on pollution control, workplace safety, food safety, and other areas that impact the well-being of society.

5. Correcting market failures: Regulations are used to address market failures that occur when the market mechanism alone cannot efficiently allocate resources or achieve desirable outcomes. Examples include regulations to address externalities (e.g., pollution), information asymmetry (e.g., mandatory disclosure requirements), and public goods provision (e.g., infrastructure development).

Overall, the purpose of economy regulations is to balance the interests of various stakeholders, promote economic growth, protect consumers, ensure fair competition, and maintain the stability and integrity of the economy.

You my little guy sound like history degree clad anarcho communist

may be a lot more possible in the future as supercomputers advance. Just look at the powerful computers and algorithms used by marketing firms, hedge funds, etc. Communist countries like the USSR and Allende's Chile used early computers and cybernetics to help plan the economy to relative success, but the computers in that era were ancient, expensive, and the experiments never really entered full force because the limited numbers of computers manufactured were usually earmarked for the military or other purposes, not to mention you wouldn't want to put the central planners themselves out of a job.

Quantum computing is used in more important tasks than implementing Marxism/socialism/communism. Only mean to do so is turn humans into hivemind of bugmen devoid of humanity.

AI is used in CCP as population control, replacing humans in every field.

Like communism this is wishful thinking at best.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

What is your excuse now?

What is your excuse for not responding to my points when I said my source was literally the same one you were using? Could it be you're *gasp* not debating in good faith?

Here's another good one illustrating what I mean by the relative equality of the Soviet system.

https://nintil.com/the-soviet-union-poverty-and-inequality/

https://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/markharrison/entry/soviet_and_russian/

But I'm sure you'll just ignore that like you do every other time I derail your Gish gallop and you can't spam books and papers you yourself have never read.

I don't know concerns over environment, overproduction, pollution and market saturation. For instance intervening with strip mining and fracking that pollute and destroy the environment. Regulations exist for a reason In order to prevent companies and individuals to sell unsafe products, prevent incompetent workers to work in any specific field. Controls exist to prevent chaos and instability. Furthermore.

People have been calling environmentalists communists for decades (here's a leftist complaining about it). I'm not answering the rest of the obviously ChatGPT content below. If you really believe what ChatGPT told you, then maybe we should start a new thread about how Woodrow Wilson and FDR were the greatest capitalists in history. Remember, much of that is owed to socialists like Upton Sinclair or people like Teddy Roosevelt whose "progressive" politics were meant to draw potential socialist voters back into the Republican Party.

Here's a good rebuttal by a right-wing site showing how the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto already are partly or entirely fulfilled in the US, largely due to Roosevelt (both Teddy and Franklin) and Wilson.

Quantum computing is used in more important tasks than implementing Marxism/socialism/communism. Only mean to do so is turn humans into hivemind of bugmen devoid of humanity.

Because all centrally planned economies now are too poor to invest in such computers or need them for more practical things. China is too capitalist right now to bother doing so, although that might change depending on what path Xi takes.

AI is used in CCP as population control, replacing humans in every field.

It's going to be like that everywhere.

 

[Glowie]

But I'm sure you'll just ignore that like you do every other time I derail your Gish gallop and you can't spam books and papers you yourself have never read.

Which I have, sheer irony of this you rushed to read your own sources or misrepresent them intentionally. I'm sure this is a human error like your Buddha claim. Assessing your every point with multiple sources all of which would provide a counter argument.
(IRONY INCOMING)


Do you see what you got wrong here hint decrease in poverty ≠ existing poverty. There goes your 38% figure, 40% figure which you saw in that "silly little libertarian blog" and Soviet paper off JSTOR the paper that I read, cited and read. In fact your source compliment JSTOR study proving that 40 % of USSR was poor, wages didn't cover basic necessities (If you read price of goods in JSTOR paper you would know this). You have habit of accusing your debaters with every fallacy under the sun, exhibit dishonesty, projection and dismissive behavior when you see that triggers cognitive dissonance.

I'm not answering the rest of the obviously ChatGPT content below. If you really believe what ChatGPT told you, then maybe we should start a new thread about how Woodrow Wilson and FDR were the greatest capitalists in history. Remember, much of that is owed to socialists like Upton Sinclair or people like Teddy Roosevelt whose "progressive" politics were meant to draw potential socialist voters back into the Republican Party.

Said content would be found in economics 101, in your sources and data gathered around the web. Your attempt to dismiss purpose of regulations and establishments is laughable. Stating purpose of regulations in free market economies which unsurprisingly exist outside US under different names.

Listing, stating and naming purposes of regulations and agencies involved aren't arguements. You'd start arguing with your teachers and scream at libraries, Wikipedia and start screaming about NATO, Falun Gong, CIA whatever bogeyman you could use as a excuse. I gave you a fair chance to find anyone credible in academia that support known disinformation, 9/11 truther. org (which is seen in Wikipedia if You bothered to search global research ca on Google. You cited Wikipedia yourselt before, funny that) You didn't give me any and resorted to semantics and kvetching

Because all centrally planned economies now are too poor to invest in such computers or need them for more practical things. China is too capitalist right now to bother doing so, although that might change depending on what path Xi takes.

CCP like, Vietnam and USSR introduced reforms, abandoned Maoism, Leninism, Stalinism and communist economy through reforms like perestroika and China opening up to avoid economic collapse, famine and further poverty for a reason: Communism works only on paper not in practice.

It's going to be like that everywhere.

Lay off the doompill, little guy, touch grass, learn useful skills as in self sufficiency like your pet ideology taught you. If you hate US so much, move back to China, complaining about your student debt by defending communism isn't productive

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Do you see what you got wrong here hint decrease in poverty ≠ existing poverty. There goes your 38% figure, 40% figure which you saw in that "silly little libertarian blog" and Soviet paper off JSTOR the paper that I read, cited and read. In fact your source compliment JSTOR study proving that 40 % of USSR was poor, wages didn't cover basic necessities (If you read price of goods in JSTOR paper you would know this).

So my claim was:
*The USSR was as economically equal as the most equal European economies (which is an actual achievement)
*Poverty was concentrated in peripheral regions

Literally nothing in that excerpt contradicts what I said. But you need your mountain of straw.

You have habit of accusing your debaters with every fallacy under the sun, exhibit dishonesty, projection and dismissive behavior when you see that triggers cognitive dissonance.

LMAO says the guy who spends the post insulting me while misinterpreting my point. At this point I think it's deliberate, like I'm arguing with a sub-ChatGPT bot.

Said content would be found in economics 101, in your sources and data gathered around the web. Your attempt to dismiss purpose of regulations and establishments is laughable. Stating purpose of regulations in free market economies which unsurprisingly exist outside US under different names.

Sure it is, since academia is (as you continually point out) dominated by leftists. The fact remains that pure capitalism is not practiced in a single country in this world. Ironically, China is probably more capitalist than the US at this point, albeit that's because Chinese labor laws and environmental laws are disregarded by the elite who own the factories and mines rather than the lack of said laws like in the US/Europe 100 years ago.

The government regulating banks and businesses by definition cannot be free market, since in a free market the businesses would regulate themselves to avoid externalities. That includes banks because fiat currency is not permitting the money supply to be subject to market forces. Since you like to spam books you've never read, here's Murray Rothbard's take on the Fed and banking.

Listing, stating and naming purposes of regulations and agencies involved aren't arguements. You'd start arguing with your teachers and scream at libraries, Wikipedia and start screaming about NATO, Falun Gong, CIA whatever bogeyman you could use as a excuse. I gave you a fair chance to find anyone credible in academia that support known disinformation, 9/11 truther. org (which is seen in Wikipedia if You bothered to search global research ca on Google. You cited Wikipedia yourselt before, funny that) You didn't give me any and resorted to semantics and kvetching

But I thought academia was run by commies and the CCP? Oh well, fortunately there are a few dissidents out there, here's Dr. Mark B. Tauger, whose specializes in the agricultural history of Eastern Europe. It proves that the Hall o' da Moor was caused by poor climate conditions made worse by Stalinist policies that occurred everywhere in the USSR.

The CIA link is well known, I mean just look at Mykola Lebed (pro-Nazi mass murderer). But you believe that Radio Free Asia is a "neutral" source and not literally funded by the US government, so you're exceptionally gullible on the level of a CNN viewer.

Lay off the doompill, little guy, touch grass, learn useful skills as in self sufficiency like your pet ideology taught you. If you hate US so much, move back to China, complaining about your student debt by defending communism isn't productive

Ah, the same self-sufficiency you have by *checks notes* watching CIA propaganda on Youtube all day whilst poorly debating your points on Kiwifarms (a website targeted by the elite for censorship). Enjoy living in the bughive with your mandatory iSocialCreditScore app.