Thread 18145421

Why do people use the Soviet Union as evidence that socialism doesn't work? Russia was a poor feudal agrarian society and they lost literally tens of millions of people in World War 2 but the USSR turned it into a industrialized society with 100% literally, free health care, free education, free housing and guaranteed employment. America was industrialized for much longer than Russia and exploited third world labor and not to mention Black, Latino and Asian labor domestically

>>18145421 (OP)
Vibes

Fuck you, commie apologist. Imagine if someone said "Hitlerism is a great idea because National socialist Germany had no unemployment, also Holocaust isn't special, Americans killed native Americans for land too".

>>18145445
>Imagine if someone said
I don't have to imagine it. They say that on this board every day.

>>18145421 (OP)
>cites state capitalist hellhole that collapsed in 70 years
>"100% literally", free stuff while ignoring the bread lines and gulags
>ignores the 100 million corpses to achieve muh industrialization
>US bad so that means the murderous, failed ideology is good

Absolute state of the tankie.

in Poland we was have communism. there weren,t any food in shops, becouse central economy cause deficits

>>18145421 (OP)
>industrialized society with 100% literally, free health care, free education, free housing and guaranteed employment
That's true but what it lacked was incentive. Nearly total central control of the economy and no private enterprise is insane. Gorbachev wanted initially to transition to a mixed economy, where workers would own shares in the factories and be able to vote on the business decisions. But then the USSR collapsed following an abortive coup by ultra-conservative communists. It's also the case that many people were pretty disenchanted by then, even the propaganda didn't seem to take itself so seriously.

>>18145425
Communism is when people do things. Capitalism is when retards do things. Capitalism is literally retards.

>>18145421 (OP)
OP...interesting to try to post about it here but you're probably better off on leftypol.

>>18145455
All economies are, in essence, centrally planned. The reason the east block didn't have an abundance of food was because abundance was not desirable and it had to support more people with less fertile land than the west.

>>18145421 (OP)
who fucking cares?
I live in america and can go to an asian buffet and eat unlimited foreign food for 20 bucks, do you know how insane that would be for a medieval peasant?
im not even a king
capitalism won fuck you

>>18145451
Gulag is just another word for prison. There are currently more Americans in prison than the number of prisoners that passed through the Gulag system throughout its entire existence.

>>18145539
wait why did we magically stop having rationed food in early 90s? get wrecked, Ivan.

>>18145565
GULAG is short for "chief administration of the camps". Bolsheviks set up labor camps where political undesirables were overworked to death. That's how Soviet excuse for an economic system worked under Stalin.

>>18145421 (OP)
>Russia was a poor feudal agrarian society
Utterly untrue and another commie myth.
They were quite industrialized, just not as industrialized as western Europe

Also throughout the entire history of the ussr they were getting massive investments and technology transfers from capitalists in the west.

>free health care, free education, free housing and guaranteed employment.
LMAO commies actually believe this

>>18145573
Don't forget, their solution to the homeless problem was simply to make it illegal and throw them in gulags or kill them lmao

Ahem

>>18145445
>>18145448
Why people always forget the socialist part of nationalsocialism?

>>18145421 (OP)
>hurr durr communism made Russia stronk
I'm so fucking tired of this narrative. Like seriously, I want to strangle people who unironically say this.
Russia had been a great power since Peter the Great, Russia took most of the German losses in WW1, Russia was equal to Austria-Hungary in terms of contribution to science. Russia would industrialize without commies, it would just use French machines instead of American ones.
>but what about… LE SPACE PROGRAM
The Russian Empire already pioneered in astronomics, they got to space in spite of communism not because of it.

>>18145539
>abundance was not desirable
of... food? the thing you need to eat in order to live? how could abundance of the most basic necessity of human life ever not be desirable? I'm not trying to mock you here or something - I actually do not understand how you could ever believe this.

>>18145421 (OP)
not true. imperial russia was making massive strides, industrializing fast as fuck before wwi.
you are a tranny.

>>18145421 (OP)
There's two root reasons - other than just prejudice against socialist societies because they're different.


A. The Soviet Union was ruled by an anti-democratic bureaucratic class, the "apparatchiks". You can debate about how this class formed, but there is no reason as to why this is need for a socialist society in principle, and this isn't unique to socialism either. Capitalism had and still has plenty of monarchic or aristocratic politics, in fact I'd argue no capitalist state today is really democratic in the Aristotelian sense of giving the people power. So its not really an argument against socialism, just an argument for not doing it with the same political system.

B. The breadlines. To be clear, the Soviet Union never "ran out of food". What there was is an imbalance of distribution. Basically, to court popular opinion, the apparatchiks in power kept lowering the price of food, in particular meat. It reached a point of absurdity where the average person could buy shit tons of foodstuffs, leaving nothing for the people who came later. This is a lesson in how planned economy used for base populist means can cause catastrophe, but isn't an argument against socialism itself. In fact if problem A. was solved, problem B. would have been less likely to happen.

>>18145687
It's an argument against central planning, which is what socialism requires

>>18145615
>LMAO commies actually believe this
I was talking to a guy today who was in the Pioneers as kid, and he said that with all its faults, they did have free education, healthcare, full employment and mostly functioning infrastructure. But he thought the centrally planned economy was crazy.

Anyways, he said as kids they liked to make fun of senile Brezhnev and didn't take the propaganda very seriously. Also everybody had to join the Pioneers, there were rounds and the "best" joined in the first round. He was not in the "best" (cue in Soviet Russia joke... Pioneers is mandatory but self-esteem is optional). They had assemblies, stupid marches, gas mask training, and basically the same as every student at school except that you also wrore a stupid red tie and a red badge with Lenin on it.

>>18145719
>free education, healthcare
Most capitalist societies have that and the quality and timeliness of these services is better.

>full employment
So you're forced to work basically and can't invest your money to retire early.

>>18145687
Hardly. The USSR's food supply problems were deep-rooted and had many reasons including shortages of chemical fertilizer and a woefully inefficient transportation network.

>>18145733
> Most capitalist societies
Since when? There is no free healtcare or free education in America.

>>18145744
Look at Europe retard

>>18145539
What? No? You're retarded?
The USSR really didn't lack fertile land - it had all of the Eurasian plain, plus Ukraine which is super fertile, and many valleys and rivers in central Asia.
Its population was always smaller or slightly bigger than the US.
Modern day post soviet states easily support bigger populations with the same amount of land and even export food, so clearly something was being done wrong to cause the holomodor

>>18145687
Apparatchik/red capitalist class is inevitable under most forms of socialism. Read Djilas.

>>18145761
Reminder that MOST of the food production in the ussr came from the tiny amount of PRIVATE plots they didn't collectivize
LMAO

>>18145539
yeah guys think about how productive and fertile the british isles are baka

>>18145733
>Most capitalist societies have that and the quality and timeliness of these services is better.
I think the Norway, Sweden, Finland type model is more attractive yes.

>So you're forced to work basically and can't invest your money to retire early.
I think so.

>>18145571
Because the western powers with their abundance of fertile land stopped using food as a weapon against you.

>>18145663
abundance = waste

the east block had limited resources and attempted to maximize the efficiency

>>18145786
the british isles are fertile

the most fertile land in the east block was the ukranian ssr, and with that they had to support 800 million people

>"He who does not work shall not eat"
>Lenin
The workers sure got everything for free lol

>>18145421 (OP)
communism makes people lazy

>>18146811
>800 million people
????
The population of the entire USSR was around 160 million at the time of the holomodor
Right now all the former USSR countries have a combined population of 300 million people (and none of them are starving)

>>18145627
at least they tried to solved their problems

we make no such efforts to preserve white race

>>18145451
>gulags
How am I meant to take this seriously when the USA has more convicts than any other place on earth with private prison forcing inmates to work for free ?

>muh collapse
Happened because of an inside coup lead by Yeltsin. Probably one of the least "organic" coup in history

>100 million
capitalism and free markets require 100 million every 5 year

>murderous, failed ideology
What's murderous in wanting people to work for themselves rather than for others simply because they were unfortunate to not dispose of capital ?

>bread lines
imo the only valid critique. It's especially damning considering that the USSR did have the technological means to adress it but oh well

>>18145615
>They were quite industrialized, just not as industrialized as western Europe
Not really, part of the reason why the bolsheviks managed to grab power so easily was because the workers in Saint-Petersburg (where the power was centralized) supported them. Russia's entire industry essentially relied on a few key strongpoints (like Saint-Petersburg), and was dependant on foreign loans to develop itself.

>>18145629
>capitalism works when you join the eu
lmfao, picrel

>>18145687
Spot on & beautifully said.
One of the most damning things that Stalin did, other than the horrible massacres, is that he essentially created a new class of cynical self-serving elites. It's quite sad to see that there were reforms adressed to make the system efficient (OGAS, Kosygin etc), but none of them were followed through because the nomenklatura wanted to keep power.

>>18145648
Russia was a backward feudal shithole. It's easy to say "what if" and come up with alternate scenarios but the reality is that the Tsar and Russia could've ended like the Ottomans as much as they could've ended like Western EU. For as much as it sucked and was poorly managed, the USSR actually managed to get on a great level of power.

>>18145733
>>18145758
>free healthcare & education
Most capitalists nations don't have these. The EU has these because communists in the wake of ww2 had strong support and enabled these policies. It's quite ironic to say that.

>So you're forced to work basically an
Retard do you think that people aren't forced to work under capitalism ? Full employment simply means that the economy is organized in a way that everyone can have work to sustain themselves.

>>18145421 (OP)

>>>/wsg/6023253

https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1762569230337469.webm

>>18146911
imperial russia was a great power dumb fucking tranny freak

>>18146803
I'm glad we have so much fucking food that I can choose to waste some of it.
Get fucked commie.

>>18146947
imperial russia was an agrarian absolutist power with developing industrial output; its living conditions were terrible, its peasantry lived mostly like serfs, it had very little intellectual development etc.
The people who say that imperial russia wouldn't have industrialized without the USSR are wrong, but it's likely that they would have never reached the level of the USSR.
Imo, given the political instability that the power faced alongside its relatively low development (and huge disparities), imperial russia would've probably been on the same developmental level as yugoslavia : decent industrialization with regional inequalities, semi-integration with western countries, and broadly poor and backwards level of development.

The merit that comes with the rapid industrialization of the USSR isn't that they achieved a better result than pessimist "what if" scenarios about their former status, but that, despite a costly civil war, a psycopathic leader and apparatchiks, a 2nd world war, and broad opposition from the developed world, they still managed to industrialize and develop themselves and reached number 2.

>>18146911
Found the tankie lol
Nice graph, now post the other ex communist countries that actually went much further with liberalization.
>Happened because of an inside coup lead by Yeltsin
Why did all of the other countries overwhelmingly vote to secede?
>capitalism and free markets require 100 million every 5 year
lmao I love how tankies blame the failures of extremely anti-free market/anti-capitalist countries on capitalism. They're so disingenuous.
>wanting people to work for themselves
You want them to be enslaved to the state. You confuse a brutal totalitarian dictatorship for "the people" because you lick boots.
>than for others
You make more money working for others. The capitalist increases productivity through capital investment and only takes around 7% of the profits(yes, that's how much the surplus value is, look up average profit margins economy wide)
>>capitalism works when you join the eu
Yeah it's almost as if being capitalist and having free trade with other capitalist nations improves living standards for workers.
>picrel
So there was chaos during the transitional period, like in every other nation when there is a drastic change? If they actually liberalized like poland and estonia did, they wouldnt have had this problem.
Jarvis pull of life expectancy drop during the period where lenin was establishing the ussr. :)
>Russia was a backward feudal shithole.
It literally wasnt.
>It's easy to say "what if" and come up with alternate scenarios
They've already been done and it doesn't look good for your side.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w19425

>>18146921
>Retard do you think that people aren't forced to work under capitalism ?
People go on welfare all of the time.
Also capitalism allows you to invest your money so you can retire early. The ussr didnt have this.

>>18146965
What if they radically liberalized during that time and had the same economic policy of Switzerland?

They would probably be the world's factory like china is today with wages sky high.

>>18146911
>capitalism and free markets require 100 million every 5 year
why do countries that liberalize their markets end up radically reducing poverty?
really makes you think

>>18146965
you haven't read a single book ever in your life.

>>18145421 (OP)
>Why do people use the Soviet Union as evidence that socialism doesn't work?

Idk maybe because of the 100 million dead people? The rape? The child prostitution? The terrible living conditions? The subjection of other nations? The human experimentation? The Jewish elites that made up 80% of the parliament? The scar on the demographics that can bee seen even today?

>>18146969
>Why did all of the other countries overwhelmingly vote to secede?
Because they wanted independance ?

>lmao I love how tankies blame the failures of extremely anti-free market/anti-capitalist countries on capitalism
Do I really need to go over that capitalism creates poverty which creates death and catastrophes ?

>You want them to be enslaved to the state
The overwhelming majority of marxists nowadays don't advocate for soviet-type economies

>You make more money working for others
This is an interesting thing to say because it reveals 2 things. First, this definitionally implies that you could make more money if you could remove the others' part in work. Secundly, this also illustrates that you don't understand that control and autonomy can be more interesting than purely profit

>The capitalist increases productivity through capital investment and only takes around 7% of the profits
Factually wrong. The share of national income going to wages (the “labor share”) is typically 50–65%, and that's in high income countries.

>being capitalist and having free trade with other capitalist nations improves living standards for workers.
Russia, belarus, ukraine, moldovia etc all had free trade. The EU isn't simply a trade agreement, it's an in-depth european project that specifically aims at leveling out inequalities between countries. It's also heavily regulated.

>So there was chaos during the transitional period
The transition period didn't end in the 2010s

>They've already been done and it doesn't look good for your side.
Did you actually read what I said ? The whole point isn't that Tsarist russia was developing or not, but that factually the USSR managed to develop itself despite many external factors which all impeded on their growth

>People go on welfare all of the time.
Ah yes, the famous welfare that capitalists love to have

>Picrel
It's funny that you seem to think that workers work voluntarily for people, or that capitalists actually do anything

>>18146986
It's usually quite the opposite. Liberalizing markets tend to make people poorer but tends to attract investment.

>>18145445
>Hitlerism is a great idea because National socialist Germany had no unemployment
I say this.
HH!

>>18146802
Ukraine has some of the best soil in the world so no that wasn't a reason for it.

>>18147066
>Liberalizing markets tend to make people poorer
Educate yourself. It's the literal opposite.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/coep.12010
https://www.patreon.com/file?h=137046506&m=554665296
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_economic_freedom

It worked in China, Vietnam, Chile, Poland, Estonia, Ireland etc.
You don't care though because you want workers to suffer in poverty.

>>18146849
im referring to the entire eastern bloc

>>18146954
your abundance is a product of imperialism, the oppression and suffering of the developing world

>>18147076
ukraine was just a small part of the eastern bloc

>>18145421 (OP)
>Russia was a poor feudal agrarian society and they lost literally tens of millions of people in World War 2
Maybe they shouldnt have tried to ally with the nazis to engage in imperialism in poland, the baltics, and finland?

>>18147182
Destroying Poland is step one of real politics.

>>18147060
>Because they wanted independance ?
yeah and to not have a socialist economy
Even within russia, the proposal to keep the ussr in tact included a massive liberalization proposal and the people fucking voted for it.
>Do I really need to go over that capitalism creates poverty
You can make shit up all you want. The exact opposite is true.
Countries with the freest markets have the highest living standards for workers.
Why are workers in Switzerland so much?
inb4 muh imperialism or something
>marxists nowadays don't advocate
That's hilariously untrue. Tankies are the most popular communists nowadays with people like hasan and hakim.
>implies that you could make more money if you could remove the others' part in work.
It doesn't though. The capitalist improves productivity far more than if it was just the workers with little capital. They're providing a benefit to the workers and only taking a little off the top as a fee.
>control and autonomy
Why the fuck do I, as a worker, want to be RESPONSIBLE for the health of the firm? I just want to collect a paycheck and go home, not worry about quarterly reports and shit.
>50–65%
Where do you get this from? I'm talking about the capitalists compensation vs the workers. I'm not talking about money which is reinvested in the firm(not going to the capitalist as compensation).
The way you do this by looking at average profit margins economy wide, it's around 7%. Also, the capitalists have far less wealth than you think, and MUCH less "extractable wealth" that the workers could liquidate.
It's the working class receiving roughly 99% of the end product of production anyway through consumer goods and services.

>>18147060
>Russia, belarus, ukraine, moldovia etc all had free trade.
Not really, and I said "being capitalist". These countries barely liberalized and in the case of belarus they basically remained a mostly state controlled economy. picrel
>It's also heavily regulated.
It's not nearly as "regulated"(interventionist) as most countries in the world and many of these countries have extremely high levels of economic freedom.
>The transition period didn't end in the 2010s
They should have actually liberalized like Poland and Estonia then.
>but that factually the USSR managed to develop itself
Only because most of their economy was built by western capitalists.
It's incredible people haven't read sutton's work on the matter.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210518104702/https://ia601203.us.archive.org/5/items/Parts13/55520165-1-Western-Technology-and-Soviet-Economic-Development-1917-1930-1968.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20210518104623/https://ia801203.us.archive.org/5/items/Parts13/55437228-2-Western-Technology-and-Soviet-Economic-Development-1930-1945-1971.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20210518104634/https://ia801203.us.archive.org/5/items/Parts13/55435162-3-Western-Technology-and-Soviet-Economic-Development-1945-1965-1973.pdf

>the famous welfare that capitalists love to have
Capitalism creates so much wealth to the point states can easily use this wealth to provide welfare. USSR didn't really have this, maybe only on paper.

>It's funny that you seem to think that workers work voluntarily for people
They do and there is no actual argument against this.

>or that capitalists actually do anything
lol
what about paying workers far in advance of the product actually getting sold(or even if a profit gets made)?
What about providing the capital that is required to increase worker productivity and to pay wages in the first place?
What about shielding from risk?

>>18147156
>cites "the praxeological institute"
This is the equivalent of citing a marxist institue to say that capitalism is bad

https://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_sept01inequality/

Liberalizing markets creates inequality, which tends to create poverty. This is what happened in Russia, South America, and more broadly in the world. Liberalizing markets only works when you have specific policies to make the profits fall back to the population (see china, vietnam, japan etc).

>>18147175
I love this RETARDED fucking argument.

What creates abundance is capital investment and mass production. States have oppressed and enslaved other states for all of human history, yet only now do we have so much abundance. Do you ever question why?

When third world countries liberalize, it doesn't lead to them being exploited, it leads to higher wages and increased living standards.
The poorest countries are the most closed off ones with the most corruption and state intervention.
We don't get rich by making other countries poor. Poverty worldwide has massively decreased over the past 150 years due to increases in productivity. If the entire third world liberalized, they would gain more factories and machines and both them AND us would be richer.

Also socialist states were extremely imperialist.

>>18147206
you believe the developing world exists in a state of abundance?

>>18147199
>>cites "the praxeological institute"
What? That's not a real thing. That's from that one paper some guy on instagram wrote.
It's extremely detailed and lists all of it's sources so cry about the sources I guess.

Also the main thing I posted was from an established economics journal.

>https://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_sept01inequality/
This paper is from 2001 and only goes back 20 years.
The paper I cited is a meta analysis of MANY studies.
>Of 402 articles citing the EFW index, 198 used the index as an independent variable in an empirical study. Over two-thirds of these studies found economic freedom to correspond to a “good” outcome such as faster growth, better living standards, more happiness, etc. Less than 4% of the sample found economic freedom to be associated with a “bad” outcome such as increased income inequality.

>Liberalizing markets creates inequality
How is that a bad thing? lol
If all workers get much richer, but capitalists get even more richer, then it's an overall net benefit.
Why do you retards believe in the fixed pie fallacy. Wealth is created, prioritizing divvying up a shrinking pie is retarded and not going to help anyone.
>Russia
Already talked about that.
Funny that's the only real example you have when they're clearly better off now AND there are many examples of liberalization working.
>South America
Mostly a result of failed socialist policies or simply interventionist ones.
Why don't you talk about what a massive disaster Allende was?

>when you have specific policies to make the profits fall back to the population (see china, vietnam, japan etc).
None of those countries do that really though, or it's only to a limited extent. Their increases in living standards came from higher wages in the PRIVATE sector. Especially in Vietnam.

>>18147214
No, that's the problem, they have no productivity, no tools and factories. They need capital investment from the west, but they're all stubborn/corrupt retards that refuse to open up.

>>18147194
>>18147198

>yeah and to not have a socialist economy
No the referendum was to grant republics more autonomy such as in a federated project

>Countries with the freest markets have the highest living standards for workers.
No that would be Sudan, or Somalia. The markets with the highest living of standards are highly regulated ones like in the EU.

>inb4 muh imperialism or something
Retard if it was as simple as lowering taxes and slashing regulation everyone would have done it. The reality is that every country which got out of 3rd world status did so through interventionnist policies or socialism.

>That's hilariously untrue
wrong but okay

>The capitalist improves productivity far more than if it was just the workers with little capital
Again, this is simply wrong. What increases productivity is investment in research and innovation as means to profit. None of these are exclusive to a capitalist mode of production.

>Why the fuck do I, as a worker, want to be RESPONSIBLE for the health of the firm?
This is like asking why a peasant in a monarchy why they would want to have democratic control

> I'm not talking about money which is reinvested in the firm
You're talking about the profit that goes directly into the hands of the capitalist after they've decided what to do with the rest. In other words, you're selecting what they keep after having decided on what to spend in the name of the company.

>Not really, and I said "being capitalist"
Anon they are capitalists. Except for Belarus, the overwhelming part of their economy is detained by private individuals in a market.

>It's not nearly as "regulated"(interventionist) as most countries in the world
lmfao

>Only because most of their economy was built by western capitalists.
Let me guess ? They adopted western technologies which suddenly makes them reliable on them ?

p1

>>18147194
>Why are workers in Switzerland so much?
**Why do workers in Switzerland make so much?
I mean

>>18147198
>>18147233
>Capitalism creates so much wealth to the point states can easily use this wealth to provide welfare
Welfare directly goes against the capitalists' class interests. Saying that capitalism creates welfare is hilariously wrong when in reality most of them were developed through socialist/communist parties in the post-war period.

>They do and there is no actual argument against this.
Ah yes, the neoclassical myth that all transactions are purely voluntary... Now, tell me, what is the alternative to working in a capitalist economy for someone without money ?

>what about paying workers far in advance of the product actually getting sold(or even if a profit gets made)?
This is called a loan to startup your business anon. Co-ops and small shops also have these.

>What about providing the capital that is required to increase worker productivity and to pay wages in the first place?
Similar to previously. Co-ops dismiss this.

>What about shielding from risk?
Typically most firms prioritize their investors over their workers' interests.

>>18147224
>That's from that one paper some guy on instagram wrote.
Why the fuck are you citing some random guy on instagram lol

>Also the main thing I posted was from an established economics journal
Yeah which I can't read except for the abstract. Your paper also uses economic "freedom", which is itself different from economic liberalization.

>inequality and fixed pie
Because it's often is at the expense of others.

>Funny that's the only real example
Russia, Ukraine, Bolivia, Argentina (under Menem, probably under Milei in a few years lol), Indonesia, central asian republics, most african countries in the 80s etc.

>None of those countries do that really though, or it's only to a limited extent.
They do though, they fund specific sectors through investments, import technologies through SEZs, priorize loans to big enterprises etc. I could go over that but these were far from the classic shock therapy

p2

>>18147226
So despite being a part of the global capitalist structure for over 200 years, developing nations still struggle with issues that the Soviet Union solved within 30 years?

But capitalism is not at fault, it's because "they're retards"

>>18147167
During the largest famine of the USSR, the holodomor, there was no eastern bloc
Even after the Warsaw pact was established its population never exceeded 400 million (and you can't consider it to be the same as the USSR).
I have no idea where you're getting 800 million from, and Ukraine wae far from the only fertile land in the ussr.

>>18145421 (OP)
The Soviet Union no longer exists.

>>18147224
All in all I'm not even opposed to free markets or liberalized economies. I'm simply against private ownership of the workforce (read schweickart if you want to get an accurate picture)
Liberalization and free markets only work in creating an optimum when certain prequisite are met. Without a state to ensure property rights or a safeguard; you get somalia or sudan. Without a state to ensure that monopolies are outlawed, you get Transnistria and Russia. Without a population which understands market dynamics, you get Ukraine. Without accountability for externalities, you get ecological disasters etc.
This would be completely fine but because neoclassicals and libertarians have been hellbent on giving an ethical and moral dimension to markets, you're forced to believe that markets have these metaphysical powers that do everything.
In reality, markets work for the common interest when asymetries are accounted for (e.g. the fact that work is coercive by nature, that companies produce externalities etc). Without that, you just end up with pure anarchical markets, like Sudan. The MMT understand this but the neoclassicals, for pervasive reasons linked to private interest and opposition to the USSR, have kept on this myth.

>>18147206
Yup, that's why colonialism was awesome ! I'm so thankful for western oil companies that work in third world countries, they're a shining example of what the market can accomplish !

>>18147233
>No the referendum was to grant republics more autonomy such as in a federated project
included in the proposal was for the ussr to basically turn into a liberalized capitalist market
>No that would be Sudan, or Somalia
Lets see.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_economic_freedom
They're both near the bottom of the list on both indexes. They're one of the most corrupt, illiberal places on earth.
Also Somalia is a failed socialist state lol, and they were a country muh CIA never intervened in.
>The markets with the highest living of standards are highly regulated ones like in the EU.
EU countries have some of the freest markets on earth, some exceeding USA in economic freedom. They have some regulations but they generally keep most of capitalism in tact.
Also debunk Switzerland, you literally can't.
Swiss workers make far more money than EU workers.
>everyone would have done it.
lol you actually think politicians have the best interests of the people in mind and aren't prone to corruption
also, some benevolent politicians have liberalized and it fucking worked.
>The reality is that every country which got out of 3rd world status did so through interventionnist policies or socialism.
HAHAHAHA What?
You're so brainwashed it hurts.
Why did Somalia, Ethiopia, Burma, Tanzania, Venezuela, North Korea try socialism and it absolutely impoverished their workers?

>>18147233
>wrong but okay
Really? Hasan is the most popular marxist influencer and he's a tankie. Nearly all communists on twitter are tankies.
>this is simply wrong
So you're telling me the capitalist doesn't buy machinery that allows the worker to produce far more goods than they would if the worker didn't have such things?
Fascinating.
>investment in research
That's one aspect of it and the majority of this is done by capitalist investment.
The other and main aspect of it is investing in capital goods using existing technology. If a third world shithole liberalized and capitalists there just set up factories without doing any new research, the workers there would thrive.
>None of these are exclusive to a capitalist mode of production.
Capitalism produces far more research than socialism.
Almost all of soviet technology came from the capitalist west. Read sutton.
also:
https://capx DOT co/soviet-communism-was-dependent-on-western-technology

>This is like asking why a peasant in a monarchy why they would want to have democratic control
It's nothing of the sort. Democratic control over your society is different from the democratic control over people's property rights.
I don't want the EXTRA WORK of giving a shit about the firm.
>after they've decided what to do with the rest.
You mean, reinvestment? The thing required to keep the firm in profit?
The capitalist doesn't get this money personally. Worker owned firms would be required to do the same thing. We should only be talking about the compensation of the worker vs the compensation of the capitalist. It's only 7%.
>Anon they are capitalists.
It's funny you retards have this braindead childish binary way of thinking where a country can only be socialist or capitalist. In reality there are only different levels of economic freedom. The poorest countries have the lowest level of economic freedom and thus the most intervention.

>>18147233
>the overwhelming part of their economy is detained by private individuals in a market.
Even this is irrelevant if the state intervenes so much that even the capitalists are piss poor and can barely invest in anything.
What we advocate is for free markets.

>lmfao
fucking COPE lol
Try starting a business in Sudan vs Germany you absolute fucking retard.
>which suddenly makes them reliable on them
If they didn't do this, they would be extremely fucking poor.
Do you know how much of a failure war communism(read: actual hardcore central planning where money was abolished) was under lenin?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWWqhsh848E

>>18147252
>Welfare directly goes against the capitalists' class interests.
That wasn't my point at all.
My point is that in countries you foolishly call "capitalism", there is enough wealth that the state can take some of it and allow some people to not have to work.
Why didn't the ussr have this if it was a worker's paradise?
>Now, tell me, what is the alternative to working in a capitalist economy for someone without money ?
Families and charity.
None of what you're saying refutes the unshakable fact that it is indeed voluntary.
In the ussr you worked or you starved, even lenin said that. How is that voluntary? It's not.
>This is called a loan
In a free economy, the money for the loan needs to be saved from somewhere. Someone needs to refrain from consumption and save money. This requires time, effort and sacrifice.
>Co-ops
lol they're required to pay back the loan, the firm can go bankrupt, they're taking on risk.
If they just used the capitalist's services, they could just get hired, take on no risk and give the capitalist a 7% fee.
>Co-ops dismiss this.
They don't for the reasons I mentioned.
Also studies show co-ops generally have lower wages than capitalist firms. inb4 mondragon which is entirely propped up by the government
>Typically most firms prioritize their investors over their workers' interests.
This didn't refute my point about workers not having to give a shit if the firm goes bankrupt and the workers not having to put up and risk any capital themselves.
>Why the fuck are you citing some random guy on instagram
Because it's well written and well sourced?
>Your paper also uses economic "freedom"
Yes you fucking retard. If this triggers you so much then just replace the term with "economic liberalism".
>which is itself different from economic liberalization.
It literally isn't.
>Because it's often is at the expense of others.
Except it isn't. I mean look at the massive reduction in poverty in the third world over the past 100 years.

>>18147252
>Russia, Ukraine
I just explained this and posted an image explaining they abandoned a lot of the liberalization.
Again, why did countries that actually liberalized like Poland, Estonia etc do far far better?
Why do countries with the most liberal markets like Switzerland and Singapore have such high living standards for workers?
Come on, lets hear your mental gymnastics.

>most african countries in the 80s etc.
You mean socialist shitholes like Somalia and Ethiopia?

>Milei
HAHAHA What?
Holy shit this is hilarious.
Milei has radically decreased inflation, radically decreased the poverty rate, rents have come down, investment is coming back to the country etc.
His presidency is the biggest fuck you to socialism in my lifetime and it just keeps getting better.
You people are going to be in a world of hurt when poverty continues to decline and have no fucking response.
In 2 years Argentina will be much better off and new york will be a crime ridden jobless shithole. I can't fucking wait.

>they fund specific sectors through investments, import technologies through SEZs, priorize loans to big enterprises etc
These are very minor, not even necessary and harmful in many cases. Vietnam for example continues to decrease their state owned firms and to move to a more free market economy.

>>18147261
>developing nations still struggle with issues that the Soviet Union solved within 30 years?
Why did many of these countries also try socialism and it was an even bigger disaster than their current state interventionist situation?
Also the soviet union only industrialized due to massive investment and tech transfers from capitalists.
Without that we get actual unironic central planning(war communism, utter disaster).

>>18147301
Oil companies investing in a third world country is actually good for them.
Any company investing in the third world is good for them.
"Sweatshops" pay much higher wages than what existed previously and they are a stepping stone to more growth in the future.

>>18147294
>MMT
You mean the monetary ideology we are currently living under and is responsible for the endless money printing, stock and housing bubbles, inequality etc?
THAT MMT?

>muh capitalist sabotage
>muh imperialist siege
>muh american meddling
Literally the predictable and unavoidable response by capitalist countries towards a state whose explicitly stated intent is to dismantle them and their systems.

>>18147252
>milei bad because internet communists told me so

>>18147336
not to mention the KGB intervened a LOT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Toucan_(KGB)

>>18147316
>included in the proposal was for the ussr to basically turn into a liberalized capitalist market
"Do you consider it necessary to preserve the USSR as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics, which will be fully ensured of human rights and freedoms of any nationality?"

>They're both near the bottom of the list on both indexes
Wait, I thought that the market worked best in deregulated environments ? Are you implying that the state must balance rights and guarantee certain things for the markets to work ?

>EU countries have some of the freest markets on earth
anon I live in one. Taxation is high, workers' rights are high, welfare & other interventionnist policies are high etc.

>muh meanie politicians dont want to establish common interest :(
do you think firms do ?

> why did [x] try socialism and it absolutely impoverished their workers?
Because they turned into dictatorships ?

>Hasan is the most popular marxist influencer and he's a tankie
I'm not sure Hasan wants an STP economy. He's also a youtuber. He's basically unknown in most major communist parties

>this is done by capitalist investment.
Perhaps because they have the means of investments ?

>Capitalism produces far more research than socialism
Markets do*.

>Democratic control over your society is different from the democratic control over people's property rights.
Not really. In both cases, you have to obey someone else independent of your control. The answer by neoclassicals to this is essentially that you're free to leave.

>We should only be talking about the compensation of the worker vs the compensation of the capitalist
No we shouldn't ? If your boss decides to spend the profits on expanding production and outsourcing your job this affects you very much

>>18147322
>What we advocate is for free markets.
You're advocating for free markets within a specific realm of rights or protection. This definitionally goes against the idea that free markets produce an optimum

>>18147348
>"Do you consider
The proposal included turning the ussr into a capitalist country basically. You're talking about the referendum but not the in depth proposal that was outlined.
>I thought that the market worked best in deregulated environments
Why do you keep strawmanning and using the term "regulation". It's intervention we care about. All regulations are interventions but not all interventions are regulations.
These countries have insane levels of intervention to the point you have to bribe the state to do literally anything, and most economic activity is nearly impossible. That's why they fail.
>Taxation is high
It's really not that high and the burden is mainly on the middle class, not the rich.
Sweden for example tried extreme socialism in the 80s and got rid of it in the 90s because it was bankrupting them.
These countries make it extremely easy to start a business by having strong property rights and less intervention.
>do you think firms do ?
They're forced by the market to do so, yes.
>Because they turned into dictatorships ?
lmao, you're SOOOO close to getting it.
also it was basically every single one kek
>He's basically unknown in most major communist parties
lmao man, now you're just lying. He's the most popular tankie/communist youtuber and defends the ussr and north korea.
>Perhaps because they have
Yes, people who have low time preference save, invest and create businesses and it benefits the workers.
>you have to obey someone
But you don't have to work for the firm or buy from them.
Also if someone enters your house, they have to follow your rules or they can leave. Is this authoritarian and anti-democratic to you?
It's almost as if democracy is flawed or something.
>and outsourcing your job
So third worlders don't deserve higher wages and better conditions?
>You're advocating for free markets within a specific realm of rights or protection
Uhhh yeah? That's how free markets work, with the enforcement of individual rights. Problem?

Cut the shit chat. Why didn't they God-build like Lunarcharsky warned?

>>18147331
you are obviously that schizo who spams the board with infographics about ford factories

>>18147379
>you are obviously that schizo who spams the board with infographics about ford factories
Nah I rarely come here.
I try to avoid politics but I'm aggressively Libertarian and I'm tempted to argue with every socialist I see. Sometimes it turns into long reply chains like this.

>>18147324
>That wasn't my point at all.
Your original point was literally that capitalist societies have free education and healthcare. If you want to argue for social-democracy, then be my guest lol

>Families and charity.
So homelessness and being a leech. Super voluntary !

>How is that voluntary?
You have to work, that's a fact of life. Except the whole ideal of socialism is that workers manage their own work, not someone else who happened to have the capabilities of investment.

>co-ops & worker's management
You seem to think I argue for the abolition of markets by using co-ops when this isn't the case ?

>It literally isn't.
One implies a processus (bringing freedom), one implies an established fact. Big difference

>>18147326
>I just explained this and posted an image explaining they abandoned a lot of the liberalization.
it doesn't appear on my screen

>Why do countries with the most liberal markets like Switzerland and Singapore have such high living standards for workers?
retard did you actually read any of what I said ?

>You mean socialist shitholes like Somalia and Ethiopia?
These performed better under socialism then they did now. Funny argument for them.

>Milei has radically decreased inflation, radically decreased the poverty rate, rents have come down, investment is coming back to the country
LMFAO
Milei's entire plan revolved around creating a mini-recession to lower inflation. This worked (by crushing gdp and others), however, demand hasn't actually grown that much since. The peso weakens, the imports get higher, and the risk of inflation crept back (which is why he lost the buenos aires election) WITHOUT the securities previously in place. The 20 billion bailout was already catastrophic but wait until you get the rest

>These are very minor
read a book

>someone is unironically using Milei as if he were a positive example

Every day I turn closer to Stalin...

>>18147400
>>someone is unironically using Milei as if he were a positive example
Uhhhh you mean the guy who radically reduced poverty, inflation, rents and has investment coming back into the country.
Uhh yeah I'm going to defend Milei. LMAO
Keep watching him over the next 2 years as things keep getting better. Cope and seethe.

Tell me how the past few decades of socialism/interventionism in Argentina went?
Could you fucking IMAGINE if Milei lost and they continued down the same failed route. They would have hyperinflation and be eating themselves by this point.

>Every day I turn closer to Stalin...
Because you hate the working class and want them to suffer and die?
also because you're an incel?

>>18147369
>The proposal included turning the ussr into a capitalist country basically. You're talking about the referendum but not the in depth proposal that was outlined.
wrong

>Why do you keep strawmanning and using the term "regulation".
Because you don't realize you're advocating specific things (probably a brand of ordoliberalism) and not genuine "free" market.

>They're forced by the market to do so, yes.
topkek, blinded by neoclassical school of though. How do you respond to externalities, asymetrical information etc?

>lmao, you're SOOOO close to getting it.
Because they were third world and leninist lmfao. That's a combination which almost invariably creates dictatorships.

>lmao man, now you're just lying.
No I'm serious. This is a very chronically online take. Hasan has very little influence and doesn't want STP economics.

>Yes, people who have low time preference save, invest and create businesses and it benefits the workers.
Yep, and then they get bought out by blackrock.

>But you don't have to work for the firm or buy from them.
You do when the alternative is homelessness.

>Also if someone enters your house, they have to follow your rules or they can leave
Now what if you force someone to come into your house ? What if you require them follow orders to make a living inside your house?

>So third worlders don't deserve higher wages and better conditions?
>libertarian tries his shot at morals.jpg

>That's how free markets work, with the enforcement of individual rights. Problem?
What meaning does liberal rights hold when they're contingent on the material ressources that one has ? It's as if the pursuit of happiness or freedom were completely based on how much wealth you have... and it's as if working for someone because of that de facto created a contradiction...

>>18147400
stalin wasn't a tranny

>>18147390
>Your original point
We were arguing over whether capitalist or socialist societies allowed you to "not work". I'm using the retarded definition of capitalism you people use which is basically anything that happens in america.
>leech.
You're not a leech if you're actually in need and people care about you. A free society with no central banking would have an abundance of charity.
>Super voluntary !
You haven't refuted the voluntary nature of a free market.
>You have to work, that's a fact of life.
lmao so it's justified for the state to literally enslave you and force you to work?
>workers manage their own work
Except in every socialist state, it was the state/vanguard that did this, not the workers.
>You seem to think
I don't. I think you're one of those market socialist co-op retards like vaush who also "critically defends" the ussr because you're a sociopath and retard.
>Big difference
I really don't care. Effectively the policies are what we are discussing. Call it liberalism, fine.
>it doesn't appear on my screen
see >>18147194
>retard did you actually read any of what I said ?
You didn't say anything about this at all.
I actually really want to know your answer to this so if you have an actual response please share.
>These performed better under socialism
LMAO what the ABSOLUTE FUCK
Especially on fucking SOMALIA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siad_Barre#Economic_policies
Fucking read this.
Even after the state collapsed and it turned into mad max, production and living standards improved lol PIC RELATED
You people just deny reality
>demand hasn't actually grown that much since.
It takes time for the economy to restructure and he wasn't able to get everything he wanted passed.
Things are definitely rapidly improving though.
Milei's economy has been the largest reduction in poverty over the past 2 years anywhere in the world.
>which is why he lost the buenos aires election
He just won the recent election in a landslide.
>read a book
says the marxist

>>18147422
He said it was an infantile disorder. If only uncle Jo was around he could have saved us from capito-liberalist trannyism.

>Because you don't realize
I'm advocating for a free market(individual rights protected, basic contract law etc). This isn't complicated or weird. Learn what intervention means.
>neoclassical
I'm Austrian chad, you brainlet.
>externalities,
*yawn*
Property rights.
>asymetrical information
meme term from people who don't understand human action
https://mises.org/mises-wire/capitalism-and-asymmetric-information
>Because they were third world and leninist
So literally every socialist state in existence?
What are you lmfaoing about? Indeed the lmfao in on you good sir. LMFAO
But seriously this is some serious cope. Nearly all socialist states turned into dictatorships.
>chronically online
You seem to think the internet is some other dimension or something when it's the real world we live in.
Yes hasan is extremely influential. He's probably the most known living communist influencer.
>Hasan has very little influence
Except on his massive audience of retards?
>Yep, and
You didn't even have an argument against my point.
>You do when the alternative is homelessness.
So I have to buy from Target or I will heckin starve to death? There's not a multitude of other stores to buy from or grow my own food?
>Now what if you force someone to come into your house ?
That's coercion and aggression, illegal in a free market obviously.
>What if you require them follow orders to make a living inside your house?
Then they can leave? lmao
>AND HECKIN STARVE TO DEATH?
lol dude, just top jej at this point
>>libertarian tries his shot at morals.jpg
Why do you hate the global poor?
>What meaning does liberal rights hold when they're contingent on the material ressources that one has ?
They are not though. Weird take.
>It's as if the pursuit of happiness or freedom were completely based on how much wealth you have...
It isn't. But it's the most efficient and moral way to sustain and thrive. The alternative is statist slavery.

>>18147436
>>18147422
He was LITERALLY a child groomer and pedophile.

>>18147418
>wrong
pic related, they wanted to liberalize
>Because you don't realize
I'm advocating for a free market(individual rights protected, basic contract law etc). This isn't complicated or weird. Learn what intervention means.
>neoclassical
I'm Austrian chad, you brainlet.
>externalities,
*yawn*
Property rights.
>asymetrical information
meme term from people who don't understand human action
https://mises.org/mises-wire/capitalism-and-asymmetric-information
>Because they were third world and leninist
So literally every socialist state in existence?
What are you lmfaoing about? Indeed the lmfao in on you good sir. LMFAO
But seriously this is some serious cope. Nearly all socialist states turned into dictatorships.
>chronically online
You seem to think the internet is some other dimension or something when it's the real world we live in.
Yes hasan is extremely influential. He's probably the most known living communist influencer.
>Hasan has very little influence
Except on his massive audience of retards?
>Yep, and
You didn't even have an argument against my point.
>You do when the alternative is homelessness.
So I have to buy from Target or I will heckin starve to death? There's not a multitude of other stores to buy from or grow my own food?
>Now what if you force someone to come into your house ?
That's coercion and aggression, illegal in a free market obviously.
>What if you require them follow orders to make a living inside your house?
Then they can leave? lmao
>AND HECKIN STARVE TO DEATH?
lol dude, just top jej at this point
>>libertarian tries his shot at morals.jpg
Why do you hate the global poor?
>What meaning does liberal rights hold when they're contingent on the material ressources that one has ?
They are not though. Weird take.
>It's as if the pursuit of happiness or freedom were completely based on how much wealth you have...
It isn't. But it's the most efficient and moral way to sustain and thrive. The alternative is statist slavery.

>>18147390
also
>The 20 billion bailout was already catastrophic
it wasn't a bailout, they simply bought a bunch of their currency to stabilize the peso
Argentina would have been fine without this, but at least we have this bonus now.

>but wait until you get the rest
I'm going to be literally gooning to socialist tears for the next 2+ years as the poverty rate continues to fall and investment booms :D

>>18145421 (OP)

Because it didn't have flying cars. Any socialist state that doesn't have flying cars is a failure. Checkmate.

>>18147458
>they wanted to liberalize
The referendum was explicitly about independence. Most people didn’t want to liberalize
>Property rights
Coasian can’t account for everything and has very big limitations.
>human action
lol not really. There’s a lot of things that are either coercive or simply impossible to know for people. Companies constantly abuse these.
>So literally every socialist state in existence?
Practically yeah. Leninism sucks
>He's probably the most known living communist influencer.
Just ask chatgpt man. More precisely, ask him if most communists want a soviet-type model
>You didn't even have an argument against my point.
It’s called responding by absurd. It’s more sane to have your labor belong to you to ensure access to satisfaction and eudemonia than to ground it in private property. Libertarians struggle with this because it implies that mutual rights are higher than money.
>having a choice means voluntary
I’ll let you think on this one
>lol dude, just top jej at this point
This shows how delusional you are. Go ask someone working in mcdonald why they’re slavering there. You can’t recognize that this is coercion because it would imply a contradiction in your system.
>They are not though. Weird take.
And now we reach it. The final stage of libertarian delusion : ignoring the real world because it doesn’t suit his worldview of purely informed, rational, voluntary economic decision
>It isn't. But it's the most efficient and moral way to sustain and thrive.
Lmfao, I accept your concession. You recognize that it isn’t the best system, yet don’t want an alternative ? Let me guess, you’ve grounded your entire worldview to the point you made it your identity ?

>>18145786
>the british isles

>>18145421 (OP)
>Guaranteed everything
They just lied didn't they

>>18145421 (OP)
Everything was free but the standard of living was abysmal relative to similarly positioned powers that didn't embrace socialism. Oh and central planning was an utterly impossible task in the context of a civilian economy.

>>18145421 (OP)
Then why did it fall?

>>18145421 (OP)
Where is the Soviet Union today?

>>18146911
>Happened because of an inside coup lead by Yeltsin. Probably one of the least "organic" coup in history
If you keep selling everything below cost or giving it away for free, you'll eventually run out of money unless you have an alternative source of income.

Saudi Arabia can afford to have no income tax, free education and free healthcare because their oil revenue can easily cover their massive welfare state.

China can afford to develop at their current speed because they are net global exporters and Americans are hyperconsoomists, the surplus is then invested in public infrastructure that would return losses otherwise.

That's literally it. If you want to keep something free, you need an alternative form of funding to keep the machine running. You can have a planned economy as long as you're good at management or as long as you win the commodity jackpot, the Soviet Union had neither.

The idea that socialism failed because of some intrinsic moral aspect of it is mere is indeed libertarian delusion, and libertarians are well known for being the most illiterate school of thought, but they are barely above tankies in that regard, who claim that every single mistake the USSR did was a mega CIA conspiracy rather than mere ineptitude.

>>18145647
Because it became redundant due to the Night of the Long Knives.