This history of socialism shows, with perfect clarity, that a fully planned economy is plainly inferior to a socialist market economy. This is not to say that fully planned economies are bad, they absolutely do have their strengths. But economies that are partially planned, directed rather than dictated, have all of the same strengths, while being infinitely more flexible. The socialism of then may have raised millions out of poverty, but it was the socialism of now century that raised them into luxury, luxury greater than anything the capitalist world has ever been able to provide.
Western "Marxists" are fucking obsessed with the idea of command economies. Half of them say that AES states are not actually socialist; this is wrong. The other half says that AES states have only temporarily adopted markets, and will return to the Golden Path as soon as possible; this is also wrong, and much more egregiously so, be because it requires ignorance of and/or cognitive dissonance towards the official statements and actions made by these nations.
Western "Marxist" arguments in favor of command economies are, likewise generally rooted in ignorance, not understanding that the lifestyles they have/aspire to would be unfeasible within a purely planned system. Those that are not rooted in ignorance are instead rooted in aceticism, in poverty worship, in an intellectual cancer that must be rooted out by whatever means necessary.
Sure, we may, at some point, obviate markets. But it would require a fundamental change in the means of production that, by my calculations, is far, far away from where we are now.
In any case, you would do yourself well to stop worshipping the corpses of Stalin and Mao and join the rest of us in the 21st century.
77 posts and 17 image replies omitted.>>2804361Command economy=State capitalism=fascism=capitalism in decay
They didn't lose they just revived capitalism and outgrew it's usefulness to rehabilitate the economy.
>>2840465Yank cuck wants to throw stones
>>2804361<This history of socialism shows, with perfect clarity, that a fully planned economy is plainly inferior to a socialist market economy. This is not to say that fully planned economies are bad, they absolutely do have their strengths. But economies that are partially planned, directed rather than dictated, have all of the same strengths, while being infinitely more flexible. The socialism of then may have raised millions out of poverty, but it was the socialism of now century that raised them into luxury, luxury greater than anything the capitalist world has ever been able to provide. Western "Marxists" are fucking obsessed with the idea of command economies. Half of them say that AES states are not actually socialist; this is wrong. The other half says that AES states have only temporarily adopted markets, and will return to the Golden Path as soon as possible; this is also wrong, and much more egregiously so, be because it requires ignorance of and/or cognitive dissonance towards the official statements and actions made by these nations. Western "Marxist" arguments in favor of command economies are, likewise generally rooted in ignorance, not understanding that the lifestyles they have/aspire to would be unfeasible within a purely planned system. Those that are not rooted in ignorance are instead rooted in aceticism, in poverty worship, in an intellectual cancer that must be rooted out by whatever means necessary. Sure, we may, at some point, obviate markets. But it would require a fundamental change in the means of production that, by my calculations, is far, far away from where we are now. In any case, you would do yourself well to stop worshipping the corpses of Stalin and Mao and join the rest of us in the 21st century.OP regardless of China its not really true that planned economies are worse and in any case computers are advanced enough now to have a fully planned economy was more efficient and better than the USSR ever did, and doing a market economy in 202X let alone after is opportunism. The fundamental change you sought was already completed arguably in the 80s/90s its just that the USSR already got taken over by revisionists and lost interest in planned economies and communism in general by then
deng won because he was not gorbachev
deng lost because he was not stalin
>>2838776man I really wish Safranov would have his book translated to English
also what's being said here probably only applies to the ministries, not goods whose production was planned centrally by GOSPLAN