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.
>>2804366Socialism = Socialized Capital
>>2804366This but unironically
>>2804435This is what he gets for investing in British stocks, he basically gave the green light for this.
>>2804435Markets have existed since the dawn of human society. They are in no way specific to capitalism, nor are they in any way inimical to socialism.
>>2804361>Command economies lost……for now. Deng made the right move and preserved proletarian dictatorship.
>>2804361>Command economies lostHow? Directive planning of the Soviet type, built an industrial superpower in a few generations.
And indicative planning of France, Japan, and currently China, shows actually allowing atomized anarchy of production to run wild, is not good for the productive forces. Because in the end, bourgeoise would just game the system with financialization.
>>2804670>Journal of Contemporary Asia>University of London<Dude trust the same Western academics who promoted the Uyghur Genocide myth about how China isn't actually socialistcommunists lost the cold war because westerners are so stupid they will always believe their own governments over commies.
>>2804676Retarded comment.
This is just shitlib identitarian nonsense with a touch of red paint, used only so you don't have to think.
>>2804361The fetish for planning makes sense when you realize that politics is about disposition as much as its about any "real" factor. Leftists tend to be neurotics prone to social desirability bias, and the chaos of an unplanned economy neither sounds good, nor sets a neurotic mind at ease that - even if they're flaky - everyone else is doing fine.
This is a shame because empirically speaking, there's no reason in principle for things to be like this. "Markets" have negative connotations, but all that they're really saying is: unless there's a very good reason not to, just let people do things! "More planning" isn't always a good thing - more often than not it doesn't mean "doing good things properly", it means "not doing good things because it's literally illegal or too much effort".
There is a failure to engage with trade-offs.
You must realize however that politics is today's ersatz religion. It is not something to take too seriously, otherwise you will go mad and you will think socially undesirable things. You undercut your point slightly by posting Deng and taking a very serious flaw in most people's thinking and allowing your view to be flattened down to being a "denogid"
I try to court controversy: I have taken to openly and
mostly honestly calling myself a neoliberal. My broad dispositional sympathies still lie with communism, but within a shorter timeframe many of the worst problems of contemporary capitalism flow from the opposite problem: from the state trying to find some clever fudge between a real market and direct state control and inventing some baroque regulatory mess. It's possible to imagine these things will be solved and reformed away leading to incrementally better outcomes (and, if you want to marxwash it, "developing the productive forces") while it defies all credibility that any of the jokers on this site or in any western Marxist org have anything near the capacity to take over a town council, let alone the commanding heights of the economy, let alone actually
run the damn thing.
>>2804361Just do a great leap forward bro.
>>2804670>>2804676>>2804679>>2804682>>2804715>Western libtard living in the UK, who previously worked for a glowie mad that Maoists were gaining influence in China's government, wants to tell you with a manufactured fake work that, akshually, China isn't really socialist<Retarded crakkkers on /leftypol/ instantly take his word as gospel and spread the messageIt would be funny if it weren't so sad. For the record, I have videos from Belarusian analysts noting that this is exactly the narrative that Amerikkka keeps trying to push to all other countries to sow distrust in China ("China doesn't care about socialism/communism anymore"), but it wouldn't work in Belarus since their communists have actually gone to China to talk with CPC party members and have recognized that it's totally false (for instance, the Belarusians claim that in private meetings with the Chinese, the Chinese representatives call Trump a reactionary imperialist and neo-fascist).
>>2804715I see that I haven't searched deep enough to avoid the genetic fallacy by affiliation. Though his position that socialism is compatible with markets is a lot more comparable to the Chinese government's position than to the one expressed in the article I cited. The wikipedia article you quote also cites Wu as an intellectual influence in China's economic reforms throughout the 70s and 80s. Could you respond to the article though?
>>2804715>>2804719Note how neither of you addesses the point being made about the existing relations of production and instead try to assassin the author instead.
>>2804719So did the PSUV and other revisionists; this is just "they said" with not even half a fact being presented
>>2804685This is literal liberaloid nonsense that tries to demote scientific socialism into some particular psychological trait of the day. It completely ignores how relations of production shape the world and society.
>>2804604>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.>>2804642>How? Directive planning of the Soviet type, built an industrial superpower in a few generations.I didn't say it was bad, I said that a hybrid system is simply better.
TJND
>>2804729relations of production do a lot to shape the world and society, but they do very little to explain the specific pathologies of the left.
>>2804361false binary. planning the commanding heights is central planning of market inputs
>>2805331I would still consider that a "directed economy", rather than an outright "command economy". The CPC pushes the general direction of the economy, but it doesn't micromanage every last detail.
>>2804361It depends on the level of the productive forces. For a few minor areas, markets are fine as the productive forces in that sphere of life haven't developed enough. But for a very large amount of areas of life today, central planning is best.
>>2805367yeah i agree that was my thought making the post and didnt want to argue semantics why i called it central planning and not command
its still a dtop and not a deviation or revisionism holy marx didnt say command was required
>>2805163Do something about it FAGGOT, oh wait that would be voluntarism and adventurism
>>2805427>its still a dtop and not a deviation or revisionism I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't!
>>2804361>marketWhat do you even mean by markets here ?
The recurring problem with discussion like these is that no one actually differentiates
>managers are autonomous and decide the price, but cannot try to make profit (i.e. price = production cost; more/less goods = cheaper/pricier goods until equilibrium)<the lange model, hungary's NEM>state decides the price and managers optimize within these constraints<Soviet-type planning>managers decide the price and try to extract as much profit as possible<regular capitalism/state-capitalismI'm guessing you mean the last one, in which case you do not seek to abolish the law of value, and as such are not communist.
>>2804685Why is it that right-wingers always try to do these weird psychanalysis of leftists as if they're a monolithic block of people that are leftist by sole virtue of sharing a common immutable psychological characteristic ?
It's frankly bizarre because it's not b8 too. A lot of them seem to genuinely insist upon it given the length of their posts so surely there must be another explanation.
>>2804676>>2804719>>2804715It's sad to see that online discussions about communism are incapable of being held without some retards spewing horseshit because of anti-imperialism or whatever.
Look, I get it. You don't like America, and neither do I. But please, do us a favor and don't call yourself communist. Just say that you like authoritarian nationalist governments that oppose the US.
"Command" economies of "communist" were basically capitalist economies but with less competition, more corruption, less ways to objectively determine efficiency of production (due to inability to determine labor content, which is possible in "normal" capitalism where prices are closely correlated to labor content). There are plenty of shithole "normal" capitalist countries with these problems as well.
>>2806794>which is possible in "normal" capitalism where prices are closely correlated to labor contentIt isn't that simple.
>>2804361In any case you should get autopermabanned and your stupid threads filtered and autodeleted, fucking ancrap Mossad troll
>>2804865one day, after we are dead, the political spectrum of all countries will be leftcom on the left, lassalleans on the right, and marxists/leninists/maoists in the center
>>2806787Because people of all politics really do share a broad set of traits. Rightists do too, and I would say compared to leftists the rightoid personality type is outright defective.
The predictive power of politics as personality is strong. It explains, for example, why for all it's purported nationalism the average rightoid globally is a Trump worshipper and will defend Trump even when Trump is threatening the country they purport to love. (They like an asshole, like when libs are unhappy, and want a strongman. That means he's appealing regardless of details like ideological consistency or obvious self interest)
DIRIGSME WON
>>2806868to be nice to those people,it's really hard to put it in your head that yes 99% of the historical human experience is being hunter gatherer in a tribe,and that we are more than 20x times closer to the start of agriculture than agriculture was to the start of homo sapiens existence
>>2806891and now theres a big chance we will go back because climate change could destroy everything
It would be funny but also painful
>>2806894while I understand the sentiment,the planet cannot sustain that lifestyle at all nowadays
And even "back in the day" there was a massive period of famine and deaths caused by the growth of human demographics + disappearance of mega-fauna.
nowadays the only mega fauna that exist are elephants,and whales,which are endangered anyway,so no that is unthinkable even if we were to come even close to 1 million people (forgetting the disaster that would result in a population loss this extreme,it's not just haha people dying,it's a massive logistical nightmare)
>>2806904so its joever if things go that bad?
>>2806794>more corruptionyes very nlike "free" markets
lmao
>>2804670Stop noticing things, Gucci is real Communism
>>2806910Not completely but it'd destroy the way we live now
>>2804361The communist movement was the strongest when USSR was restricting market organization and as soon as they started increasing the role of markets capitalist started winning. Incredible that some leftists can look at this and then conclude that markets are good.
Crazy to see so called communists completely dropping the ball on the newfound and increasing viability of planning with modern logistics, CGE/IO models, linear programming, etc. Markets as a clearing mechanism for end goods are useful; labor markets, factor markets, financial markets etc are immensely destructive
>>2804367Socialization is just equal distribution of control, that can be achieved without the government.
>>2833749>Incredible that some leftists can look at this and then conclude that markets are good.many leftists are anti-communist so its not incredible at all
>>2833749>>2835361I think before we judge the ability of too free a market to impede in the communist revolution, we should judge the Soviet state for committing multiple mass killings.
>>2835391>Oh no, leftist are point out markets are shit!>Better bring up some off topic controversy…Ok porky since you bring up the topic what about the millions of people America and their military dictatorship friends killed all over the world? If markets were really efficient then capitalists wouldn't have needed to murder so many people to prop them up.
>>2835416Humans are just another expendable resource among all others in nature, haven’t you read theory?
>>2835416It was never to prop up markets, it was to prevent local peoples from controlling their resources and having the ability to actually reap the benefits from selling such goods on a market. The issue with markets is monopolistic control, but that’s the same issue with command economies.
<Ass
>>2835444>It was never to prop up marketsExcept all the times the military was used to impose markets on people who didn't want them.
> it was to prevent local peoples from controlling their resources How local is local enough? Do you mean an individual, a family or 10 families? A corporation, county, a country, a continent? Whenever it doesn't work market obsessives end up changing exactly how local they were talking about when it's convenient.
>The issue with markets is monopolistic controlLiner programming alone has destroyed the so called "economic calculation problem." Even the Inca were able to eliminate markets by keeping track of resources with knots and string.
>>2835459>How local is local enough? Do you mean an individual, a family or 10 families? A corporation, county, a country, a continent? Localities arise naturally along any cultural/administrative grounds in place. Some can be more just or effective than others in their representation, and there are a lot that must be rewritten, but the point is that it should be democratically decided by the people in the immediate area. Family structures vary too greatly, but everyone has to live somewhere in urban or rural or even nomadic environments. Preferably they will be governed and employed by locals (if not themselves) whose position they have a say over.
>Even the Inca were able to eliminate markets by keeping track of resources with knots and string.I don’t know enough about the Incan economy, I would love to hear about some successful experiments with central planning, it seems the pre colonial third world is the only place to find such innovations. However I do think the religious traditionalism of the era would’ve played a strong role as well, and I think with digital interconnectivity where it’s at, the best way to distribute resources is with a currency, allowing each person to pick and choose goods and services they want at their discretion.
>>2835476>Localities arise naturally along any cultural/administrative grounds in place.Localities aren't "natural" at all and every single culture is a result of forced integration from city-states, kingdoms, nations and empires that has been happening for thousands of years.
>point is that it should be democratically decided by the people in the immediate area.>distribute resources is with a currency, allowing each person to pick and choose goods and services they want at their discretionThose are two different goals. Local democratic control of resources by a group is different from markets based on individuals using money to make purchases.
>I would love to hear about some successful experiments with central planning,Every single Fortune 500 corporation is an example of a centralized economic unit and they also coordinate with each other. Problem is they coordinate in order to rip off everyone and take profits instead of fulfilling needs.
>>2834771>>2833749can we get a breakdown on the relative level of development of the ussr at the time of the changes compared to china and which sectors of the economy were subject to market anarchy and which were directed by state planning? and are we talking about deng or xi? lenin or gorbachev? only one of these has evidence of collapse. what does it mean for the capitalists to win? by what metric, on what time scale?
>>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
>>2838776If I recall, this was direct result of the kosygin reform prioritizing profitability & sales volume indicators;
Construction cost also increased because of delays in completion due to enterprises using their increased retained earnings to fund their kwn expansion & buying from decentralized warehouses at fixed prices (With gossnab only handling about 100k or so different goods compared to like 10 million different kinds produced)
>>2833749sometimes you have to commit to things fully for them to work, while a half-way house just gets you killed. indulge my metaphor:
if you walk down the middle of the road, between two lanes, you've got a good chance of being hit by a car. all it takes is someone to be a little bit out of their lane and you're going down.
if you move just a few steps to the left or to the right, your chance of being hit by a car will spike dramatically because you're now walking directly in one of the lanes of traffic.
if you move all the way, however, your risk of being hit declines again because now you're not on the road at all.
in the case of the USSR in its later years, you could expand the metaphor to absurdity, Gorbachev deciding to
lie down in the middle of one of the lanes with his eyes shut. Deng and
especially Jiang Zemin, on the other hand, were skilled Frogger players.
>>2835248labor markets aren't that bad in principle but they get fucked by neoliberals falling into an obvious public-choice theory trap: lots of firms will lobby for tax cuts (they wall want more money), few will lobby for deregulation (the firms that would exist in a competitive market can't pay you before they exist, but those who exist in a regulated market can pay you to leave them alone…), and powerful interests will oppose increased welfare in-general (money for poors? why not tax cuts for me?) but accept increased in-work welfare. (i get the labor, you pay? good deal.)
the result is that "flexicurity" and "protect people, not jobs" wind up being memes despite being a pretty good theoretical solution to the problem that a functioning market will destroy lots of jobs and create lots of new jobs, while people want stability in their income and daily routine.
>>2838210It depends on product and market. Much of the time there is some dominant business that effectually centralizes most of the market with some smaller competitors waiting in the wings. For example Microsoft Office is about 70% of productivity software market and also about 70% of the OS market. So even if technically there is competition between software companies, capitalist markets effectively centralized key processes to increase compatibility between companies and increase productivity.
>>2804361why are "liberal" Liberals so fucking smug?
socialism is when you produce things privately so you can exchange them for equivalents on the market
>>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
Unique IPs: 47