BD32

5y

Not sure if I have less respect for people who cape for the Soviet Union or those who do the same for the United States. At least people in the former category have unwilful ignorance on their side

deadacc

5y

again why wait until it's too late for a chance something will happen?

i just don't understand why you're working so hard to fight against something you want in the end ?

newgodlevel

5y

Soviet Union did a lot of good and some bad

USA did a lot of bad

Enpax

5y

What are you talking about, modern China landed on the moon after it was no longer communist. Even most of your fellow communists itt would agree that it no longer qualifies as a communist country now

newgodlevel

5y

China was still Communist under Deng, they were just trying a different route to get there - similar to Lenin's New Economic Policy.

Markets aren't entirely antithetical to capitalism - they existed long before the development of private property

Enpax

5y

If you believe that markets aren’t antithetical to socialism why did you take such offense to my post SPECIFICALLY talking against central planning alone

newgodlevel

5y

I don't know what you're specifically referring to but all I said is that neoclassical economics (aka the theory of the free market) is based on assumptions that don't exist IRL.

Enpax

5y

Chinas not communist

Cudderwalks

5y

Maybe we can agree on one thing

Enpax

5y

You’ve been combative with me this whole thread, starting with your attempted confronting over Russia and the us having similar inequality. As if I defended the US anywhere in the OP

newgodlevel

5y

it wasn't confrontational, just making a funny point about America's inequality fomenting a revolution

Enpax

5y

The point I’m trying to make is relative to other countries in its time period, Russia and Cuba went from second world to second world. The few countries that went from third world to first world were not socialist

newgodlevel

5y

Cuba is on America's doorstep, and faced significant sanctions and a literal invasion.

The Soviet Union trialled a completely new economic paradigm on a nation big enough to be its own continent. Eventually it buckled under its military spending, which was made necessary by U.S antagonism.

Their achievements are significant even if you don't take those into account.

newgodlevel

5y

Soviet Union did a lot of good and some bad

USA did a lot of bad

Frankito Reynolds

5y

Yeah go tell that to soviets neighbours lmao

Enpax

5y

The sanctions they faced were more than offset by their trade with the Soviet Union alone, and when combined with the rest of the eastern bloc plus even some U.S. allies, that’s not enough to deter it from being a better country. Also that invasion was just america embarrassing itself with disgruntled ex cubans.

Idk why you bring up the Soviet unions size as if that isn’t the biggest reason it succeeded. Owing to its massive population and resources, the Soviets could afford to back scale on trade because they had almost enough to build a full economy with, and they eventually got the trading partners they needed to complete the last process of industrialization.

Their achievements aren’t significant because their standing in the world remained unchanged relative to the achievements of other countries in the same time frame

newgodlevel

5y

ever heard of the gravity model of trade? The USSR was much further and less wealthy than the United States. It simply could not compete.

Resources are not a perfect way of determining productivity. Plenty of resource rich countries are poor and plenty of barren countries are wealthy.

newgodlevel

5y

ever heard of the gravity model of trade? The USSR was much further and less wealthy than the United States. It simply could not compete.

Resources are not a perfect way of determining productivity. Plenty of resource rich countries are poor and plenty of barren countries are wealthy.

newgodlevel

5y

ever heard of the gravity model of trade? The USSR was much further and less wealthy than the United States. It simply could not compete.

Resources are not a perfect way of determining productivity. Plenty of resource rich countries are poor and plenty of barren countries are wealthy.

Enpax

5y

Resource rich countries are poor because their governments might lend themselves to corruption or ill-planning due to their over reliance on a single export. Resource poor countries can be rich by investing in infrastructure and creating a skilled labour base to meet the needs of a global market. But there is no example of a resource poor nation building itself through socialism because that would be impossible.

I think the fact that central planning only worked out to any extent in countries that were already either resource rich or somewhat industrialized show that its not a model worth pursuing

Frankito Reynolds

5y

Another reason it worked for them is because they engaged in imperialism abroad to keep the social peace inside. It's like what china does now - imperialists with socialist facade

Enpax

5y

Resource rich countries are poor because their governments might lend themselves to corruption or ill-planning due to their over reliance on a single export. Resource poor countries can be rich by investing in infrastructure and creating a skilled labour base to meet the needs of a global market. But there is no example of a resource poor nation building itself through socialism because that would be impossible.

I think the fact that central planning only worked out to any extent in countries that were already either resource rich or somewhat industrialized show that its not a model worth pursuing