You still arguing with the guy who couldn't wrap his head around the difference between an individual murderer and the literati
You’ve made like 5 off comments about me in this thread like come off it
The welfare mechanism of social democracy in 2020 is weakened by every corporation tax dodging to the Caymans. The golden age of social democracy only existed because far leftists put a fire under Europe's ass to the point where capitalists had to make concessions. Once the USSR fell, social democracy died out pretty much instantly and got replaced with neoliberalism with the likes of Blair or Schröder, since nobody was there to pressure the ruling classes. The social democrats discredited themselves and people prefered the conservative neoliberals since they were more honest about what they were doing than the rose-flagged neoliberals talking about solidarity while imposing austerity and dismantling state enterprises and welfare benefits.
He's a weirdo blair supporter lmao
just curious. do you actually want a transition to a centrally planned economy or were you just defending the ussr bc its the right wing whipping boy these days
just curious. do you actually want a transition to a centrally planned economy or were you just defending the ussr bc its the right wing whipping boy these days
It depends on which country, how far along that country is. Marxists still believe that capitalism has some advantages, otherwise it wouldn't have replaced feudalism.
If we are talking about an advanced economy with an industrial base, then central planning using computerized and cybernetical planning, the internet of things, blockchain technologies and big data solutions would be the way forward in this century. Not very different than what corporations like Amazon are doing internally, just on a national scale.
But it depends, state capitalism is better than neoliberal capitalism, market socialism is plausible if the property relations don't allow central planning and so on.
The biggest economy problem in the USSR was not being able to plan with supercomputers calculating the labor and resource inputs, and not having internet to transmit data quickly, instead having to rely on a few telephone lines. It's honestly amazing what they managed to do with just pen and paper planning, but this approach only worked for heavy industry, not the consumer sector/light industry.
I used the same source you did, you just conveniently cropped that part out
Also, socialism is about WEALTH, not income. Rich people don't become rich because of their income, they don't depend on wage labor, their wealth stands outside of income - this is basic knowledge. How dense do you have to be not to understand this? Is Bezos rich because of his f***ing income?
Show me how much the top 10% in Denmark own in WEALTH and how much the top 1ü% Russians did. Trying to argue that the Soviet Union has higher wealth inequality than most capitalist nations is straight up revisionist history. Not even capitalist propagandists believe that. If anything, their critique is "Everyone is poor"
You spend 5 posts whining about me on income inequality, and said a few posts ago “oh everyone knows socialism is about addressing wealth, not income.” None of my posts in this page even mention wealth lol, although I may have misspoke when I said how much the top 10% owns rather than “makes” at the end of the day not only is the poverty rate lower in these countries than the Soviet Union, but the poor generally have higher standards of living at that
“That’s because Scandinavian countries had colonial empires”
I mean they kind of didn’t have them to anywhere near the extent of Western Europe, plus didn’t really have them at all at the time of their largest increase of living standards. Also, you think the vast economic growth of the Soviet Union has nothing to do with it being the largest country wth the most natural resources and third largest population, all as a result of Russian imperial gains in previous centuries? Then just for the central Asian SSRs to be measurably poorer than the Slavic and Baltic ones
You spend 5 posts whining about me on income inequality, and said a few posts ago “oh everyone knows socialism is about addressing wealth, not income.” None of my posts in this page even mention wealth lol, although I may have misspoke when I said how much the top 10% owns rather than “makes” at the end of the day not only is the poverty rate lower in these countries than the Soviet Union, but the poor generally have higher standards of living at that
“That’s because Scandinavian countries had colonial empires”
I mean they kind of didn’t have them to anywhere near the extent of Western Europe, plus didn’t really have them at all at the time of their largest increase of living standards. Also, you think the vast economic growth of the Soviet Union has nothing to do with it being the largest country wth the most natural resources and third largest population, all as a result of Russian imperial gains in previous centuries? Then just for the central Asian SSRs to be measurably poorer than the Slavic and Baltic ones
You have zero reading comprehension skills
You have zero reading comprehension skills
Okay only solution both of you: post your best twerking video of yourself to the thread and let the people decide the winner
still don’t feel like reading walls of text to discern what are the main disagreements here but I’ll try
Stalin and mao killed 100s of millions
^This the statement that sparked the debate happening rn?
Learning about the USSR now and am curious as to why they were against the Prague Spring? Seems the proposed economic reforms in Czechoslovakia might have been something they’d consider seeing as their economy was stagnant at the time, interesting reading that Kosygin was marginalised for trying to modernise their economy. In contrast reading about the approach Deng Xiaoping took and comparing the power of the two states now is interesting to see 👀
Socialism directly requires authoritarianism so this makes sense thinking about it
Might be the dumbest post ITT
So they had to be murdered? Like they couldn’t have all been deported or put in camps or re education camps? Again I’m hairping on this because you said yourself you would have also killed them
Re-education camps.
Idk what’s worse, death or being put in a camp
Re-education camps.
Idk what’s worse, death or being put in a camp
It could be like a summer camp where they learn arts and crafts instead of hiring gangs to terrorize and extort peasants for land
It could be like a summer camp where they learn arts and crafts instead of hiring gangs to terrorize and extort peasants for land
O yeah I heard about how the uighurs having the time of their lives in those camps it sounds incredible
O yeah I heard about how the uighurs having the time of their lives in those camps it sounds incredible
China should use a warlord like Kadyrov instead I agree
Mfers claiming they commie but ain’t never starved a day in their life, f***ing posers
China should use a warlord like Kadyrov instead I agree
I ain’t even bout to debate that yet I’m just bringing up that that s*** is f***ed
Still reading thru the whole thread so I can see the whole convo
How
Just learning about USSR and CCP and so far it doesn’t look good lmao. A lot of suppression and a centralised state structure where they have to use some questionable means of maintaining adherence to their commitments/goals. Hope it gets better after Mao and Stalin lmao
Just learning about USSR and CCP and so far it doesn’t look good lmao. A lot of suppression and a centralised state structure where they have to use some questionable means of maintaining adherence to their commitments/goals. Hope it gets better after Mao and Stalin lmao
People love to pretend like these governments weren’t founded by violent communists.