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.
67 posts and 14 image replies omitted.>>2835487Actually the fortune 500 companies are in the most fervent & irreconcilable competition with one another, generally speaking; Significant expansion means cannibalizing each other.
While singular bilateral deals can happen, there is no generalized merger or coalition.
The problem with capitalism is that it is insufficiently centralized (or unitary, which is a less ambiguous & imprecise term than centralized)
>>2836560Safronov recently came out with a huge book on the topic of the USSR's economy & the changes to its organizational structure over time.
>>2805722Only good post in this shit thread
Ignoring also that the DPRK is debunking this, after clamping down on markets which produce nothing around 2020 they are now doing pretty well, so well in fact that now even the cope york times have reported on this. Even "experts" are crying about how north korean people doing better is actually bad um ok? Also im pretty sure the USSR didnt plan literally everything or every commodity they produced, the goods that lacked in the ussr were also the same goods they really didnt plan, the planning resources were mostly used towards heavy industry, not consumer goods (although some things they did produce are known for their reliability, like in the GDR). Anyway, it all boils down to how much of the surplus value you reinvest back into a given society and towards infrastructure etc… markets themselves dont do jackshit