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.
>>2804823Lassalle won, Marx and Engels lost in the battleground of reality
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?
Unique IPs: 28