Can you make a convincing argument that a socialist command economy is a bad thing? The way I see it, a lot of the angles for arguing against it don't fully succeed.

>communism is bad, Marxism is bad

You don't have to have Marxist ideology or a goal to create an ill-defined "communist society" to have a socialist command economy. In theory, you could run the system based on a wide variety of thought systems. Religious communes are an example.

>it didn't work, it literally doesn't work

Prove that it will never work well. More data collection, more computing power, more resources, capital and GDP over all? Not in a thousand years? Fucking impossible?

>it doesn't work- because living under it sucks/sucked

Sure, living under it sucks if you're starving and getting shot en masse. Does it suck if you live in austerity? You live in Soviet Russia at it's peak. You get enough food not to be malnourished. If you don't have heating, you brave the cold because you're Russian and you're not a bitch. You have a satisfactory education (something they did well compared to other things) and occupational opportunities to go along with it. What's wrong? You want cake and a comfy couch? You have to actually justify hedonist ethics to make this argument.

>it's bad because I like the market economy

Why? Because getting rich on your own efforts and being rich feels good emotionally? It doesn't feel good for 50-inch tall prostitutes. You don't want to pursue post-scarcity like you would anyway with your fellow comrades and you prefer a gross status hierarchy where you can dominate your underlings?

>>17870406 (OP)
>>>/biz/

>>17870462
It's within the overlap. Ethics and morality is /his/

A human seeks the conquest of nature, a parasite the conquest of man. Socialist policy demands the full scale initiation of force on its populace. It is conquest of man and their property for the idea of equity which is impossible to achieve.

>>17870406 (OP)
>socialist command economy is a bad thing?
Khruschev being a retard nuking artels, and with it, the means to cover up for the lack of luxury goods with something closely resembling private business

>>17870548
>You will own nothing, eat bugs and be happy!!!
At least Soviets respected personal property. Capitalists won't even let you have that.

>>17870548
neechee said this in a dream

>>17870406 (OP)
>You don't have to have Marxist ideology or a goal to create an ill-defined "communist society" to have a socialist command economy.
Well, sure. The command economies were based at least in part on World War I war economies. They looked at that as a potential model for socializing production, and there are points of contact with Marx who wanted to do that, but Marx wasn't an economic planner.

>Prove that it will never work well.
Can't prove a negative.

>Sure, living under it sucks if you're starving and getting shot en masse. Does it suck if you live in austerity? You live in Soviet Russia at it's peak.
They accomplished certain things, industrialization. But it ran on scarcity. Do you remember during COVID when certain items like toilet paper would run out, and you'd have to know people if you didn't have any, and you wanted some? It was like that in Soviet Russia for virtually everything all the time. If you saw a line, you got in line and then asked "what are they giving," because whatever it was, it was probably not going to be available again for awhile. That was the reality. Let alone living in communal apartments where there were 9 or 10 families sharing a single bathroom and kitchen.

>What's wrong? You want cake and a comfy couch?
That's be nice. But the main problem is that when the state took charge of people's economic lives, the idea that it would have no need to interfere in other aspects of people's lives proved to false. These were states that dictated what people were supposed to think. It also created an ideology for them, and tried to govern people's emotional lives as well as setting up a code of conduct, and as far as possible tried to isolate them from the outside world. It was like being shut up in an artificial world. So when people who traveled abroad (and there weren't very many) came back and said, hey, in those other countries, you can go into a store and buy whatever you want, people didn't really believe that -- at first.

>>17870406 (OP)
>a socialist command economy is a bad thing?
to be honest I am less opposed to socialist economics than I am to the other things which socialism carries with it as extra-baggage. In fact I think aspects of socialism are better suited to the well being of the country than capitalism, but the whole internationalism part of marxist socialism is a huge turn off for me and most socialists are marxist socialists.

>>17870548
But basically every aspect of social life in the West for the past 50 years has been a made up fake and gay version of organic culture just to market products. You can simultaneously acknowledge that command economies don't work and that rich rootless capitalists will always push degeneracy if it means more people spend spend spend.

>>17870406 (OP)
The reason planned economy sucks is because it turns the state into one giant monopolist, which is economically inefficient in most domains outside a few things like mass production of shitty military equipment or electricity or something.

Further, the planned economy isn't even really socialism under any definition; it doesn't give workers control of the MoP (oldest definition of socialism) nor does it abolish the commodity form entirely (Newer, Marxist definition of socialism).

All in all its just kinda a shitty system.

if its a dead broke thirdie nation, with only low tier human capital a command socialist command economy could help for rapid industrialization, raising literacy rates, and building the needed infrastructure to be successful with a 5 or 10 year plan, in which were very succesful in rapidly building in the ussr and china, but it is effectively enslaving your population, and miscalculations can lead to horrors and famines

>>17870406 (OP)
It seems like they can work okay-ish if you get the fundamentals right. The Soviet Union's economic performance isn't out of line with the longue duree of Russian history for example because they had a big internal market and abundant natural resources, while North Korea tried to do autarky in a small country and totally failed. You can see the satellite states as a kind of in between case, mostly not *so* much worse than they probably would have been otherwise but clearly being held back by poor export performance and a tendency to build mini-USSRs instead of specializing.

It's hard to see any real advantages to a planned system though - maybe in the Soviet case it's hard to imagine any other system that could have increased investment share of GDP as quickly as Stalin did? But this was a one time thing that didn't represent a persistent advantage

>>17870406 (OP)
>Can you make a convincing argument that a socialist command economy is a bad thing?
Well yeah, overcentralization leads to inefficiency and crappy arbitrary policies, you can see it in OP pic where they are using road vehicles to collect the grain when a tractor and trailer would be more efficient and less prone to accidents. The same thing happens over and over, price controls lead to shortages, the state has to intervene to limit purchases per customer and start micromanaging everything, yet the shortages continue.

>Religious communes are an example.
They aren't command economies, the amish choose to cooperate with their communities that they have lived with all their lives, this is another element of a command economy that is corruptive, the authoritarian system.

>You have to actually justify hedonist ethics to make this argument.
If poverty builds sovl, or whatever, you don't need a command economy to accomplish this specifically, again look at the amish, deliberately abstaining from certain luxuries and conveniences. They are also majority white which I'm sure gets under your skin. Where are the hispanic, black, arab, 'jeet and asian amish and mennonites and such groups? The amish don't use many resources, they can build these communities pretty much anywhere with the "green revolution" boosting crop yields, you'd think these communes would be springing up all over the world, yet most of the world is utter shit. It is a great irony that the most backwards reactionary white conservatives achieve the utopia you dream of.

>It doesn't feel good for 50-inch tall prostitutes.
what

OP here. To be clear, I have wierd, syncretic politics. I don't insist on command economy myself but I have a soft spot for it. Exercising direct, intentional control over the economy just feels more intuitive than le stocks and bonds jewspeak.

>>17872711
It's not a "communism has never been tried" argument to say that not every potential policy has been put into practice. The shitty shortage economy with rations and black markets didn't have to be so callous and dishonest. Why not just organize the distribution of resources more clearly and neatly and find an angle to accomodate the black markets into the mainstream without just killing the system? Communicate clearly with the population and show genuine concern for their material problems maybe? Certainly not every voting/civil participation system has been tried in socialism.

>Can't prove a negative
Seems like more of a rhetorical error. If somebody proved that you could calculate prices with a central authority better than the market with some mystery quantum computing trick, it would answer the question just fine.

>>17872900
An ideal socialist society doesn't have to be about collective justice and equity, triumph over the bourgeoisie. To put it crudely, the "vibe" of the ideology could be civilized, organized, austere, educated, designed to achieve long-term goals instead of short-term profits.

>you don't like whites haha
And I have three piercings and green hair, right?

>50-inch prostitutes
That's my point about hierarchy. Human beings have an overactive urge to compete and dominate which I don't find appealing. How do you think Larry Fink feels inside a 50-inch bitch? He's not the one crying.

>>17870406 (OP)
Currently the largest and most significant socialist command economy on Earth is China.

Relative to its population of 1.4 billion people, Chinas economic output is extremely poor and continues to trail behind the United States, a country with less than a third of its population, and that's after decades of agressive development policy