eye contact

5y

those qualities of life do not exist without a source of cheap foreign labor and goods that can be imported for cheap and given to its citizens for cheap while domestic laborers can enjoy whatever production is still protected in their own country

eye contact

5y

socialistic policies 100% placed the Taiwanese in a position to allow them to develop the nation while keeping workers happy

imagine if there had been rudimentary public education, limited healthcare, and no land reform like we have in america right now

Enpax

5y

On top of my earlier response, inequality in the Russian Empire was about the same as inequality in the United States now.

Gdp per capita for U.S. in 2015 was 56,839
Idk if you ever lived in America but that sounds like the average income to me. But just to back it up with data the median wage for wage earners in for the second quarter of 2015 was 801 a week. That means around 41,000 year. While lower than the gdp per capita, it is still well within its ballpark.
If we assume that the 1913 figure for Russia’s gdp per capita is as distorted as the U.S. gdp per capita (despite having less income inequality than america by then) yet somehow the other countries I listed with lower gdps than Russia are completely undistorted compared to actual wages for some reason then the earlier 3,040 becomes 2,219, which is still higher than Japan and Portugal. No matter how you put it, the Russian empire was not some “backwater country” before the revolution, it was behind Western Europe and The US, which it has remained since after the revolution

spongebob

5y

It's just kinda overly specific to GDP for my taste and isn't that compelling to me, but im probably biased anyway,

I'd just say that 'remarkable growth' isn't NOT due to socialist leadership,

Although I know @OP and I could most likely agree that the situation is more complicated than absolutist claims

eye contact

5y

socialistic policies 100% placed the Taiwanese in a position to allow them to develop the nation while keeping workers happy

imagine if there had been rudimentary public education, limited healthcare, and no land reform like we have in america right now

Enpax

5y

Leftists often use “socialistic policies” as a pivot to explain why countries do well. But Taiwan and all the other Asian tigers are not socialist countries, no matter how much the government interferes. This thread wasn’t even made to criticize government intervention or guiding economic policy, I don’t mind state involvement in the economy. It is strictly to argue against central planning

newgodlevel

5y

"On top of my earlier response, inequality in the Russian Empire was about the same as inequality in the United States now"

lol think carefully about what it is you're saying here

spongebob

5y

Nah I don't have expertise in each country's GDP's so I can't really refute your claims or a***ysis, even though I was trying to digest the points you were making, I think the way you're trying to separate those gains under those leaders from socialism is too nuanced for me to really agree with you, I mean obviously, there's context and other factors than strictly ideologies, yeah. But like other people ITT said there were other improvements toward equality under those leaders that surpassed other nations I just don't think it's that strong of an argument

Enpax

5y

Why are you like this now? I made this thread to prevent more people from being converted like you were

Enpax

5y

My point isn’t “the Soviet Union made life worse for everyone in it”
It’s the fact that the achievements of Cuba and the Soviet Union are not tied to the central planning of the economies as they are to a strong hand the government played towards the welfare of the people. I have nothing against a government massively investing in education and infrastructure, in fact I think every government should. But the truth is many self proclaimed socialist nations didn’t even do that

Cudderwalks

5y

What do you think there’s some kind of dangerous growth of socialism in the US ? Why do you need to prevent people from
Marxism?

The reason people become communists isn’t because of soviet stats but the way they were f***ed over everyday of their life by capitalism

Enpax

5y

I know it’s largely because of personal reasons, that’s why I need people to not be socialists because adopting failed economic theories from the 20th century are not an adequate way to address the shortcomings of policy in the western world. Also communists are very insufferable so it’s important to prevent any more from joining, even if it’s just one. I’m not afraid of a communist revolution, I’m afraid of more people on the fence becoming attracted by socialist posts on ktt and becoming terrible posters due to it

TragedyBerlusconi

5y

Also everyone agrees america kinda sucks unless you're rich.

Wht about all the other countries that are democratic and have markets but have far better quality of life than america?

deadacc

5y

what's the point in what you're even saying man.

"centrally planned economies are dogshit but the achievements of Cuba and the Soviet Union are tied to actually making it the incentive of the government to invest in massive and unprecedented social programs due to socialist ideology which I agree with"

Cudderwalks

5y

Damn maybe I was just a good poster last March when I was just a soc dem, imagine

deadacc

5y

the reason sweden can be sweden is because the vast majority of the world is not.

the productivity of workers in places like the US and Sweden are similar to the productivity of workers in producing countries ie bangladesh etc.

the wage differentials however are up to 40:1 and that transference of value is the reason wealthy countries can live the way they do while depressing the economies of less wealthy countries.

this is why a lot of socialists are strictly opposed to social democracies as it just transfers the issues imposed on a society or marginalized group to another society or marginalized group elsewhere

deadacc

5y

the reason sweden can be sweden is because the vast majority of the world is not.

the productivity of workers in places like the US and Sweden are similar to the productivity of workers in producing countries ie bangladesh etc.

the wage differentials however are up to 40:1 and that transference of value is the reason wealthy countries can live the way they do while depressing the economies of less wealthy countries.

this is why a lot of socialists are strictly opposed to social democracies as it just transfers the issues imposed on a society or marginalized group to another society or marginalized group elsewhere

Enpax

5y

1. The Soviet Union and Cuba didn’t do the good they did because they were socialist nations, they accomplished by simply investing where they should have

2. The actual effects of central planning economies just leads to economic stagnation and inadequate production of consumer goods

TragedyBerlusconi

5y

Those countries providing cheaper labour and resources also benefit and develop

Eventually everyone will be developed as we have automation on the horizon

deadacc

5y

they invested where they should have because they were incentivized to under socialism.

under capitalism similar investments could definitely be made but they only if they were incentivized to ie profitable.

given that these social investments are to benefit the vast majority of the population i don't see why you would want to risk having the decision made by incentivizing corporations like you would under capitalism than just making it an imperative of the government to take care of the people like under socialism?

for your second point, it's a personal opinion but i don't understand why a society NEEDS to continue to exponentially grow its gdp per capita.

but also from what i understand the economic stagnation of the ussr before gorbachev was due to a myriad of factors including the ussr's difficulty with producing microprocessors combined with the heavy investment into digitizing the government at the time which wouldn't be factors involved in a centrally planned economy now.

Enpax

5y

You wouldn’t “incentivize corporations” under capitalism, you would incentivize a productive and skilled workforce. Which would mean investing in roads, schools, healthcare, etc. Many capitalist countries in the third world fail to do so because they are corrupt, marred by ethnic tensions, derailed by improper planning and such. But guess what, many socialist countries in the third world also failed for the same exact reasons anyway. You guys have this idea that just because I criticize central planning that makes me a borderline libertarian when it’s not true. America is not doing what it should at home or overseas and I don’t claim it is. But an increase in public spending and an expansion in the welfare state doesn’t mean I think that most economic controls should be controlled by the government

theboy

5y

Russia and Cuba being practically 3rd world countries is exactly why revolutions took place there and not in developed countries like Germany, where Marx and everyone thought a Revolution would take place lmao.

theboy

5y

Russia and Cuba being practically 3rd world countries is exactly why revolutions took place there and not in developed countries like Germany, where Marx and everyone thought a Revolution would take place lmao.

deadacc

5y

im not really tryna attack you or nothing. you seem educated on the subject but from my pov you're looking to criticize socialism while believing in socialism's same critiques of capitalism.

you are right that investment into social programs incentivizes a productive work force, but the incentives for a capitalist government are not to create a productive work force but to create profit.

this is probably the biggest issue with capitalism is that its a system that only incentivizes profit while neglecting the reality that profit is not the only thing in this world that matters. sadly this is the reality of the US today and the vast majority of us suffer for it.