/edu/ - Education

List of debunks
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gxwhh-vdeB--47HM-20cEVRC9eAMhrapbNf0Sk8VSOs/mobilebasic#heading=h.ty1cm2sp6wbz AntiCommunism debunk post

Previous debunk thread: http://archive.vn/g2gtW

>Technically speaking, art will no longer exist under communism because the purpose of art - to advance the revolution - will be fulfilled. There can be no meaningful art once the utopia is created.
>So music, paintings, movies, games, etc will be gone under communism in favor of working an assembly line making 19th century goods and group sex. In that sense Roddenberry is just a classical liberal with some progressive bullshit thrown in. Very much an FDR style Democrat.

&ltBy counting the most meagre form of life (existence) as the standard, indeed, as the general standard – general because it is applicable to the mass of men. He turns the worker into an insensible being lacking all needs, just as he changes his activity into a pure abstraction from all activity. To him, therefore, every luxury of the worker seems to be reprehensible, and everything that goes beyond the most abstract need – be it in the realm of passive enjoyment, or a manifestation of activity – seems to him a luxury. Political economy, this science of wealth, is therefore simultaneously the science of renunciation, of want, of saving and it actually reaches the point where it spares man the need of either fresh air or physical exercise. This science of marvellous industry is simultaneously the science of asceticism, and its true ideal is the ascetic but extortionate miser and the ascetic but productive slave. Its moral ideal is the worker who takes part of his wages to the savings-bank, and it has even found ready-made a servile art which embodies this pet idea: it has been presented, bathed in sentimentality, on the stage. Thus political economy – despite its worldly and voluptuous appearance – is a true moral science, the most moral of all the sciences. Self-renunciation, the renunciation of life and of all human needs, is its principal thesis. The less you eat, drink and buy books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorise, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you save – the greater becomes your treasure which neither moths nor rust will devour – your capital. The less you are, the less you express your own life, the more you have, i.e., the greater is your alienated life, the greater is the store of your estranged being. Everything ||XVI| which the political economist takes from you in life and in humanity, he replaces for you in money and in wealth; and all the things which you cannot do, your money can do. It can eat and, drink, go to the dance hall and the theatre; it can travel, it can appropriate art, learning, the treasures of the past, political power – all this it can appropriate for you – it can buy all this: it is true endowment. Yet being all this, it wants to do nothing but create itself, buy itself; for everything else is after all its servant, and when I have the master I have the servant and do not need his servant. All passions and all activity must therefore be submerged in avarice. The worker may only have enough for him to want to live, and may only want to live in order to have that.
t. Marx

Why People Don't Read Anymore: https://archive.is/w1f30

>>4211
>https://docs.google.com/
blergh

>>4211
does you have a pdf of this??

>>4218
No, but feel free to make one, it's not my doc anyway.

>>4212
>>4212
>Why People Don't Read Anymore: https://archive.is/w1f30
Good post for redpilling Americans.

>>5648
Nicu work

>Muh Minimum Wage is bad! 7 dollars an hour is fine! 11 dollars an hour is fine!
&ltBootstraps!!!

7.25 x 40 = $290 a week. A fucking WEEK. BEFORE TAX. 11.50 x 40 = 460$ a week before tax.

The minimum wage MUST be raised. When it was established, it was in line to be keyed to Inflation rates and the national average cost of living. Minimum wage is NOT set according to skill level. This is the "My Pie Fallacy" where people think they deserve to earn a much higher gap from "burger flippers" and idiots who disagree with raising the wage need to stop it RIGHT FUCKING NOW. Other people getting more money doesn't mean you get less, you fucking MORONS.

The minimum wage is supposed to be over $27 right now. That is how much Inflation and Productivity has gone up since the wage was first set in 1938.

In fact, thanks to corporate pandering in Congress, the minimum wage peaked in "value" in 1968, and this was back when the majority of those making minimum wage were teenagers who had families to supplement their major expenses, not people who have families of their own TO support. Many states have recognized this and have implemented their own increased wages.

We are in a VERY precarious place right now with the minimum wage being as dangerously low as it is. We are about to see crime rates increase as more and more people keep being unable to live on their wages alone, as just LAST YEAR the supplementary rates of welfare and EBT systems reached the point where the wage problem surpassed it.

We are being herded to financial ruin by billionaires who intend to crash the market so they can buy companies and stock at a record minimum costs only to turn it around again afterwards and reap the high values. We have seen this before. We MUST eliminate this enemy. If not the rich themselves, then the traitor Republicans they own and keep on leashes must be excised from power and replaced with a competent third party. Because presently they are not an American political group. They are ENEMIES.

>Inb4 muh raised prices
Price Ceiling regulations.

>Inb4 muh immigratns
The importation of workers is a symptom and blocking it isn't going to do anything other than drive low skill positions to be outsourced from the Firs World or result in the hiring of illegal immigrants anyway, as has been demonstrated every single time people have tried restricting immigration for low skill workers. Moreover Immigrants are also part of the market and therefore their effect is negated by their productivity.

>If you're so smart, why aren't you rich!?
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/if-you-re-so-smart-why-aren-t-you-rich?
https://archive.is/cl3WR

>Why did the gas chamber doors have hinges that turned inward when bodies would pile up against the door as people tried to force their way out of the only egress point? Why were they made of wood
Well since the Jews are on the inside of the gas chamber, and they panic and rush the doors, then they can't swing them open. That's why all exits for buildings larger than homes have doors that swing outside. Also push bars, so the force of the crowd would push them open. The Chambers were generally not made of wood.

>Why were the Russians the only ones to ever find a "death camp"
The Germans built their death camps on conquered Poland so they wouldn't have to import Jews in Germany, they wouldn't have to soil German soil with millions of dead bodies, and because it would be convenient for when they ran out of Jews and started gassing Poles. Kind of like how the United States builds it torture camps in Cuba and Iraq.

>Why did the Nazi's kill in such convoluted ways when a bullet to the brain stem costs pennies?
Gas was cheaper and faster while bullets were needed for combat. They even tried gassing by carbon monoxide poisoning from running truck engines, but zyklon B was cheaper still. However majority of Holocaust executions still involved gun-based executions by the Einsatzgruppen.

>modern crematories can't even reach a fraction of that capacity taking 2.5 hours per body and how can so many be done over a short 2 year period
Modern crematoria are designed to cremate individual bodies and return their ashes to their families, as opposed to the mass burning of large number of bodies.

Now a question to pose to Holocaust Deniers, why was no actual Nazi a Holocaust denier during and after the war?

This one simple fact shows that most of what modern deniers try to claim is a silly contrivance. From 1945 onwards, thousands of Nazis were captured and hundreds tried for their part in the Holocaust and other crimes against humanity. They tried to pretend they were someone else, they tried to pretend they didn't know what was happening, they tried to pretend they didn't have as much to do with it as others, they tried to claim they were just following orders and they tried to justify it as "the kind of thing that happens in war." But what they did NOT do was DENY it happened.

Even men on trial for their lives, in the full knowledge they would be hanged if convicted, never stood up in the courtroom and shouted "This is all a lie! This is a fabrication! There were no gas chambers and no crematoria! I'M BEING FRAMED!!!!" On the contrary, they gave great detail as to precisely how they had helped build and helped run the mechanics of mass murder, some of them even seeming proud of how they had achieved something so complex and on such a vast scale.

Response to pic related

collectivism: the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.

racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different racial group based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

Collectivism and racism are utterly irrelevant to one another In the USSR the entire system existed around collectivization and there were over 200 different races, ethnicities, religions and cultures, yet discrimination was practically non-existent. What more, the (collectivized) people living there were actively educated to be against racism, and thousands of students from under-developed countries were taken in for free to gain an education and to mingle with the peoples of the USSR. Afghani orphans and immigrants were welcomed with open arms in the USSR, with special centers built to educate them and give them homes, homes that were taken away with the advent of capitalism in the states of the ex-USSR. It is self-evident that this was not simply a token act, by the fact that many of the former orphans as adults, are saddened by the fall of the USSR, and some have joined the war in Novarussia, saying that they're paying them back for the kindness they were shown as kids.

Individual rights may be important but excessive attention to only your individual and no others is chauvinistic idiocy. Instead of enriching one-self while the rest remain poor or even at the cost of making others poorer, one must enrich themselves with their fellows and to do that, one must work collectively for a single goal and be ready to sacrifice for a greater good.

>>4466
>Price Ceiling regulations.
Doesn't this just lead to black markets?

>>4557
No, not really, since a price ceiling means that there is a limit to how much something can inflate in price and therefore wages won't be made worthless if prices rise.

>>4558
If something gets price-capped and runs out of stock your only way of getting it is more expensively through other means behind the government's back.

>>4559
Not this argument again.
1 - this implies that it wouldn't have the same thing occur should stock prices not be capped and therefore inflate massively, resulting in the same thing
2 - this implies that capitalist over-production isn't wasteful already and doesn't produce more than enough for everyone.

>>4560
This year alone should be evidence enough that what I said would happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-European_Shepherd
>It was a favourite of the KGB, who only ever kept solid black examples;
&ltif a single non-black pup was born in a litter bred by the KGB the entire litter was destroyed and that breeding was not repeated.
What kind of movie-villain bullshit is this? The sources are some obscure books on dog breeds with no citations themselves. Laughable.

>>4754
Pictured here are members of the Soviet Border Troops, a branch of the KGB, on horseback with a clearly non solid black Shepherd

>>4212
the purpose of art is not to advance the revolution. lol. autistic take

Anyone got a comprehensive debunk on this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes
>inb4 muh wikipedia
It's a high result on google, therefore it's sadly relevant.

>>5987
You should get more specific
one would probably need a hundred books to debunk all of that

>>5988
Someone who knows more than me about history should go through every single claim and debunk them, then make an infographic.

>>5989
thats absolutly impossible

>>5990
Nothing is impossible, anon.

Absolutely based thread

Anyone have that hilariously pedantic debunk of meme related, talking about how many kilowatts of energy the USSR required compared to the output of the reactor and the explosion?

Also on the topic of strawmen
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/888/306/246.png
is probably one of the most retarded Horseshoe memes I've seen yet, and the fact that the morons of KYM are wanking it as being "so true" is even worse.

There's a reason I'm completely against any sort of private money being introduced, directly or indirectly, into the political process, and why I think that we should move completely towards a system of public funding for election campaigns and put strict limits on lobbying.

While the First Amendment does enumerate the rights to freedom of speech and "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," I do not believe that includes the right of private citizens to provide material assistance of any kind to politicians or political candidates. You can write a letter to your Congressperson. You can buy your own personal billboard. But you should be able to provide literally nothing to the candidate, either when they're running for office or when they're holding office. No money, no gifts, no favors. You use your words and nothing else. Absolutely. Nothing.

Private donations and other favors are inherently corrupting, regardless of their current legality. They come with an implicit quid pro quo attached to them. "I do this for you, and you pass laws that benefit our agenda and/or bottom line." It's an investment, and the donor wants a return on that investment. There's a reason why it seems politicians owe more loyalty towards the corporations, special interests, and other powerful private entities than to the people at large. Because they do. They will always put the needs of their biggest donors ahead of those of the rest of their constituents.

>>4466
>The importation of workers is a symptom and blocking it isn't going to do anything other than drive low skill positions to be outsourced from the Firs World or result in the hiring of illegal immigrants anyway, as has been demonstrated every single time people have tried restricting immigration for low skill workers. Moreover Immigrants are also part of the market and therefore their effect is negated by their productivity.
They're still a major cause for the decrease of cost of unskilled labour. Block migrants who are low-skill so they can help their own countries. Impose high tarrifs on imported goods. Simple as.

>>6633
>a major cause for the decrease of cost of unskilled labour
No they are not, even without immigration the reserve army of labour causes wages to be decreased, and the reserve army of labour will never be allowed to dry up.
>high tarrifs on imported goods
Same as the above, the import policy of the USA in 1929 and subsequent Depression demonstrate how this is no more than a temporary solution, like putting a lid on a boiling pot.

>>6635
>No they are not, even without immigration the reserve army of labour causes wages to be decreased, and the reserve army of labour will never be allowed to dry up.
And what is this "reserve army" of labour you speak of? If it's women, then you simply make women culturally prevented from work. If it's the elderly, then you must understand that those who are becoming physically incapable of work will not only probably refuse to work, but even if they tried, employers with an iota of intelligence will refuse to hire them.
>Same as the above, the import policy of the USA in 1929 and subsequent Depression demonstrate how this is no more than a temporary solution, like putting a lid on a boiling pot.
Can you provide evidence that the import policy had a large amount of influence on the Depression's occurrence? And if it was the primary or even one of the top 5 causes of the Depression, then according to Marxism, it's likely that there would be something else that would cause an equally serious economic depression since they are apparently inevitable. In that case, why do you say as if high tariffs are something that caused an economic depression?

>>6615
>KYM
Damn, i used to frequent that shithole i was a lib there in 2019, the community was full of pseudo intellectual centrists and right-winger that they broke bread with against le coomie sjw, just now i have gone there and saw a post about stalin being a le pedo, still it was there that i learned ex- socialist countries wanted to go back so it kinda was the start of my radicalization.

>>6636
>"reserve army" of labour you speak of
The non employed working class you dolt - people who are eligible to be part of the work force but are not working out of lack of jobs
>inb4 just make more jobs
This is neither infinite, nor efficient, and moreover it's against the interest of the elite upper classes to provide jobs or products for all, see pic related.
>make women culturally prevented from work
Which
A) Would be protested by a significant portion of the population
B) unsupported by the ruling class, who purposefully changed wage labor to force women to work to let people earn enough money to live and support their family, helping to further alienate family from one another through daily isolation from one another.
>the elderly
The fuck are you talking about?
>Incapable of work
No shit, but the fact that pensions, healthcare and other necessities are being undercut constantly doesn't mean they aren't forced to seek work into their old age to survive.

>provide evidence
Evidence of what? The Smoot-Hawley Act put high import taxes on over 20,000 products which, due to the depression in the other parts of the international market exacerbated inflation by creating price-wage gaps that spiraled into an utter collapse. Fairly basic cause and effect. Obviously there were other factors, but there are always other factors, point is high tariffs have never been successful or useful in capitalism because it restricts the market, which contradictive both requires and opposes regulation - see Adam Smith, if this is not as self-evident as it should be.
>why do you say as if high tariffs are something that caused an economic depression?
Because those aren't dichotomies, capitalism has a predicted and observed habit to cycle through inflation and depressions, which often involve collapses of economies, this being enacted by the ever fluctuating existence or lack of policies and actions of the state, which acts in the interests of the upper class capitalists.

>>6647
>wanted to go back so it kinda was the start of my radicalization.
They downvote the hell out of any "commie" and support mostly liberal politics, among which is moaning about Uighur camps and other such tripe.

>>6661
Like i said, full of centrists and right wingers, but is not unexpeced, since they mosty repeat news from the propaganda multiplier or repeating from memes/screencaps from reddit/4chan, what do you expect it would happen, honestly another thing that place teached me is to cool it and not care too much about anything the internet do and if you don't like it just leave to not bust your head as most of it is shit flinging, screaming and egomaniacal people going up their moral high horses to shit on those people they see as wrong over, not caring about internet bullshit really does wonder for your brain.

>>6665
>to cool it and not care too much about anything the internet do
I learned that lesson way before KYM, but good for you m8.

>>6660
>>inb4 just make more jobs
>This is neither infinite, nor efficient, and moreover it's against the interest of the elite upper classes to provide jobs or products for all, see pic related.
Not sure how that works. The rich need people to do the work they can't do. If they want to make more money, they'll either have to gouge prices through practices that most capitalists deem as immoral and anti-capitalist, see: Adam Smith on landlords, or they'll have to increase the product, or they'll have to make some sort of scientific advancement. Excluding the first, which we can all agree is a pan-ideological issue that everyone besides a few hates, the other two end up benefiting everyone else. More product is needed to be made by more workers, more people get more jobs. Retard. The latter is obvious.
>A) Would be protested by a significant portion of the population
pimp slap em and reintroduce conscription for men, and make it applied for nonmarried, employed women. badda boom.
>B) unsupported by the ruling class, who purposefully changed wage labor to force women to work to let people earn enough money to live and support their family, helping to further alienate family from one another through daily isolation from one another.
Cart before the horse. Certain people supported second-wave feminism, feminism let women work, Capitalists reduced their prices for labour seeing the higher supply of it. Retards who ironically are in agreeance with leftyshit economics caused a harmful cycle that can only be solved by cutting off the supply of labour.
>The Smoot-Hawley Act put high import taxes on over 20,000 products which, due to the depression in the other parts of the international market exacerbated inflation by creating price-wage gaps that spiraled into an utter collapse.
It's rather debated if the Smoot-Hawley act actually had a hand in worsening the situation. To you it may seem cut and dry, but to me it seems way more inconclusive. Then again, social issues are more of my forte. I ain't no economist, and I don't see that changing because I see social issues as more important than economic issues.
>Because those aren't dichotomies, capitalism has a predicted and observed habit to cycle through inflation and depressions, which often involve collapses of economies, this being enacted by the ever fluctuating existence or lack of policies and actions of the state, which acts in the interests of the upper class capitalists.
If the cycle was caused by government inaction, and then action under political pressure, then why does most evidence lead to the great depression rather being caused by panicked private interests trying to save their profits? While I can admit, this does put a pin on the problems with our current system, it doesn't directly provide evidence to the theory that government intervention is the problem. Rather, it could be the solution if anything.

>>6684
>The rich need people to do the work they can't do
Yes to make a profit, but they also need to have leverage over people so that they can't just demand fair pay.
>either have to gouge prices through practices that most capitalists deem as immoral and anti-capitalist
<Adam Smith
If it isn't already self-evident, not only does porky not actually give a damn about Adam Smith (especially given their constant attempts to remove regulations) but have no qualms with unethical behavior (see any sweatshop, private army and CEO scandal).
>the other two end up benefiting everyone else
Except they don't. More product doesn't = good because A) too much availability devalues demand, forcing them to create artificial demand by restricting products or making "better" products more expensive, as the infographic explains.
>retard
No, YOU are retarded if you think your naiive idea actually makes sense when the system itself does not do so in reality on purpose. The amount of food produced in the USA far exceeds people's needs, but yet we still have people who starve or are forced to eat the shittiest, unhealthiest foods to survive, because price gouging. Companies like Star Market throw out up to 80% of their food despite it being still edible because it's an excess production.
>pimp slap em and reintroduce conscription for men, and make it applied for nonmarried, employed women
That ain't gonna work, Gung-ho Joe
>Certain people supported second-wave feminism
Porky, call a spade, a spade.
>Retards who ironically are in agreeance with leftyshit economics
How is a literal capitalist market economy LEFTIST? Stop associating retard liberals with leftism when they're dumbass centrists. The Soviet economy and Female work force already demonstrates that a leftist economy had women not forced to work by the need to support their family but merely given the option to pursue their interests and a career and also be able to have a family without having to worry about things like electricity bills, taxes, healthcare costs and other rubbish that might make a domestic life hard to support.
>I see social issues as more important than economic issues
And therein lies your problem, social and economic issues are connected things, not separate or dichotomous, that's why capitalism and communism are Socio-Economic systems and not a social or economic systems. This is the most basic Base-Superstructure argument - a stable organized economy allows for stable growth which in turn supports a stable society that can afford to develop interests outside of just work and rest. If the economy is inherently unstable, society will also be.
>If the cycle was caused by government inaction
Under capitalism the government can never be in control because it is a tool of the upper class whose votes matter more through lobbying, social status and other pressure. The government is a marionette, an attack dog of porky who does their bidding, and if they step out of line, they get replaced. If necessary a candidate for a governmental position will demonstrate ideology they wish to promote, last term it was Trump for the pro-conservatives, now its Biden, to appeal to the liberals.
>why does most evidence lead to the great depression rather being caused by panicked private interests trying to save their profits?
Because the government's hands-free-approach led to policies that let these private companies do what they want, and this led to these companies controlling the market unrestricted, and driving it into the crash, which is especially egregious, given how the American Economy was riding the high from the industrial boom caused by WW1 reducing foreign competition and reviving the military-industrial complex (See General Smedley's War is a Racket).
>doesn't directly provide evidence to the theory that government intervention is the problem. Rather, it could be the solution if anything
Under a capitalist system government intervention can only be a stop gap, and only if it pulls something like FDR did, which gets everyone's panties in a twist. Regardless the system will continue to inflate and collapse unless a planned economic system with an appropriately organized government is used, this is proven with the rapid growth of Japan and how it had a collapse in the 90s due to private corporations trying to break away from this.

>>6687
>Yes to make a profit, but they also need to have leverage over people so that they can't just demand fair pay.
I wonder how they do that. hmm.
>If it isn't already self-evident, not only does porky not actually give a damn about Adam Smith (especially given their constant attempts to remove regulations) but have no qualms with unethical behavior (see any sweatshop, private army and CEO scandal).
Yes and he doesn't give a shit about Marx either.
>How is a literal capitalist market economy LEFTIST? Stop associating retard liberals with leftism when they're dumbass centrists. The Soviet economy and Female work force already demonstrates that a leftist economy had women not forced to work by the need to support their family but merely given the option to pursue their interests and a career and also be able to have a family without having to worry about things like electricity bills, taxes, healthcare costs and other rubbish that might make a domestic life hard to support.
name literally anyone who was pro-immigration, pro-women rights, pro-gayshit, etc. who didn't describe themselves as a socialist, particularly when those ideas were "on the fringe." And wait, are you seriously saying that "you must work or u will starve" is bad? Where the fuck do you think the food comes from? Everything we've built in our society is created by transiting the effort needed to hunt, farm, or herd into the effort to create literally anything else. If you seriously say "Women will work because they want to in communism" then that's fucking retarded. You will need to work in communism in the same vein that you will need to work in capitalism.
Assuming that women will get to choose to work under socialism is fucking ridiculous because it implies so many different things. If women choose, do men not have the choice? If women choose, why would they choose? If it's a choice to work, then who will work besides the likely minority who won't devulge in earthly pleasures? So many base fucking questions that are just answered by "Just make 'em work."
>And therein lies your problem, social and economic issues are connected things, not separate or dichotomous, that's why capitalism and communism are Socio-Economic systems and not a social or economic systems. This is the most basic Base-Superstructure argument - a stable organized economy allows for stable growth which in turn supports a stable society that can afford to develop interests outside of just work and rest. If the economy is inherently unstable, society will also be.
Social issues come before economic. Nobody will give a fuck about how the joo- I mean the booj are oppressing them when they're living off of pills not to off themselves, living a cold, lonely life. This is clearly fact, look at how little people give a shit about anything economically related when social leftism/liberalism/anything-against-tradition-alism became the cultural norm.
>Under capitalism the government can never be in control because it is a tool of the upper class whose votes matter more through lobbying, social status and other pressure. The government is a marionette, an attack dog of porky who does their bidding, and if they step out of line, they get replaced. If necessary a candidate for a governmental position will demonstrate ideology they wish to promote, last term it was Trump for the pro-conservatives, now its Biden, to appeal to the liberals.
Well no shit. The question now is, do we need to change the system of good creation and distribution to solve the issue of the rich and the government jerking eachother off to specifically fuck us over?
>Because the government's hands-free-approach led to policies that let these private companies do what they want, and this led to these companies controlling the market unrestricted, and driving it into the crash, which is especially egregious, given how the American Economy was riding the high from the industrial boom caused by WW1 reducing foreign competition and reviving the military-industrial complex (See General Smedley's War is a Racket).
I don't know man, seems kinda retarded for rich people to give their power away like that.
>Under a capitalist system government intervention can only be a stop gap, and only if it pulls something like FDR did, which gets everyone's panties in a twist. Regardless the system will continue to inflate and collapse unless a planned economic system with an appropriately organized government is used, this is proven with the rapid growth of Japan and how it had a collapse in the 90s due to private corporations trying to break away from this.
Sounds like what Fascists want. What I want.

>>6688 Seriously m8 I want to say read a book, because everything you're saying is the most basic bitch myths of what socialism is and isn't.
>how they do that
Exploitation of labor and surplus value as well as promotion of hyperconsumerism.
> he doesn't give a shit about Marx
Sure he does, because they actively oppose Marx's ideology, as it threatens their entire system by criticizing and exposing its ineffective and corrupt nature.
>name literally anyone who was pro-immigration, pro-women rights, pro-gayshit, etc. who didn't describe themselves as a socialist
<describe themselves
Are you retarded or just pretending? Besides the fact that most anti-socialist liberals, basically every modern "leftist" in the West promotes an idpol-addled rainbow capitalism. They just want more gay, black and female porkies, because they're retards. This is directly opposed to Socialist ideology which puts class issues first, and places idpol issues as secondary and only as part of class issues. Intersectionality is inherently anti-socialist, which is why Western liberal feminists have been excluded from genuine socialist circles since the times of Marx and onwards pic 1&2 related.
>"you must work or u will starve" is bad
<Lenin and the USSR literally promoted "Those who do not work, do not eat" except in regards to invalids, children, mothers and the elderly, (and even then invalids, and the elderly had opportunities for work if they wished so, but did not need to). Pic 5 related (this growth was built on labor)
No faggot, I'm saying that people should need to struggle like slaves to survive, because if they spend all their time laboring they have no time to become cultured and be actually self-actualized human beings (pic 3 related), poor people in the 1950s were reading more than people do today FFS because people literally have less time to even kickback and read a book, as they come home tired and just want to watch braindead escapist TV and drink beer (see Orwell).
>If women choose, do men not have the choice
<do the people who are traditionally the breadwinners of sustenance for their families get a choice to not do this
Nice goal-post shifting.
>who will work besides the likely minority who won't devulge in earthly pleasures
See the USSR, AGAIN. People were encouraged but not forced to work full time because it was ingrained into the culture that people shouldn't be leeches and ought to work if they can, this freedom of choice meant rather than women doing the same exact work as men because of some delusional feminist equilism, they could pursue careers that interested them. Men ALSO pursued careers of interest but were also culturally obligated to work in general, because men are breadwinners and women usually became housewives and mothers with responsibilities there instead. Women in the USSR worked jobs that were appropriate for them and did part-time because they were encouraged to be wives and mothers without the stress of not being able to provide for their family.
>so many questions answered by "fuck ethics and trying to think, lets just do shit on impulse"
c'mon now
>Social issues come before economic
No they fucking don't. Social issues, unless they are incredibly minor, are usually linked to economic problems. The main issue of, say, racial equality is equal social standing through equal economic standing. People getting lower pay or being rejected for jobs because of race is a social issue based on an economic problem. The Base (economy) is more major than the Superstructure (society). As I've said many times before, 90% of identity-politics problems about women's rights and black rights and whatever the fuck would be solved automatically by a change in the mode of production and economic organization, because most of these delusions by liberals are actually just part of a single greater class issue. Pic 4 reelated
>when they're living off of pills not to off themselves
Doesn't stop every Jamal, Vicky and Tom from organizing Pussy Parade protests and BLM riots, no matter how hopped up on Oxi they might be.
>how little people give a shit about anything economically related… when muh 'leftists; became the cultural norm
Again, liberal capitalism with a rainbow coat of paint and virtue signalling is still capitalism, the WHOLE POINT of these liberal delusions is to distract from the fact that it's the ECONOMIC issues that are important, you wackadoo. It's like They Live but far less obvious.
>do we need to change the system of good creation and distribution
Since a switch to socialism (actual socialism and not whatever you think socialism is) involves Alt+F4ing the Elite upper class and seizing their assets - which are basically the majority of the worlds resources - and organizing them under a planned system… YES.
>seems kinda retarded for rich people to give their power away
The elite command the government and prefer when the government only restricts those who are restricting their liberty to exploit people.
>Sounds like what Fascists want. What I want.
A planned economic system, with organized government to provide stability? Buddy, you want socialism, REAL socialism like Marxist-Leninism or the like, not liberal frauds or social democrat half-asses. The ORIGINAL fascist ideology was essentially a breakaway from Marxism, but it's incomplete and flawed.

Seriously, literally 90% of the things self-claimed fascists want are achievable through far less immoral and irrational means and with far more efficiency with Marxism-Leninism.

>>6699
>people should NOT need to struggle like slaves to survive
corrected a typo in my post.

>>6699
>Are you retarded or just pretending? Besides the fact that most anti-socialist liberals, basically every modern "leftist" in the West promotes an idpol-addled rainbow capitalism. They just want more gay, black and female porkies, because they're retards. This is directly opposed to Socialist ideology which puts class issues first, and places idpol issues as secondary and only as part of class issues. Intersectionality is inherently anti-socialist, which is why Western liberal feminists have been excluded from genuine socialist circles since the times of Marx and onwards pic 1&2 related.
Well good. I'm glad to hear you're solving that issue out.
>No faggot, I'm saying that people should need to struggle like slaves to survive, because if they spend all their time laboring they have no time to become cultured and be actually self-actualized human beings (pic 3 related), poor people in the 1950s were reading more than people do today FFS because people literally have less time to even kickback and read a book, as they come home tired and just want to watch braindead escapist TV and drink beer (see Orwell).
I think that this issue can be solved multiple ways. It could be a physiological/psychological issue as opposed to caused by economics. Workers in the 1950's probably more than likely did more strenuous physical work due to the absence of large-scale white-collar work. This could be solved in a multitude of ways that doesn't imply the dissolution of our current socio-economic system; rather it can be solved through better nutrition, more cohesive societies, etc.
>Nice goal-post shifting.
Fair point. But in the case of arguing if women should work, there's a whole pile of other factors on why women are working today. It makes no sense how Muhammed can work a simple job and pay for his 9 children and wife, but native citizens can't find a way to support kids under one income. There could be multiple factors, some of which having economic influence but can be easily pinned on "da jooz bad."
>See the USSR, AGAIN. People were encouraged but not forced to work full time because it was ingrained into the culture that people shouldn't be leeches and ought to work if they can, this freedom of choice meant rather than women doing the same exact work as men because of some delusional feminist equilism, they could pursue careers that interested them. Men ALSO pursued careers of interest but were also culturally obligated to work in general, because men are breadwinners and women usually became housewives and mothers with responsibilities there instead. Women in the USSR worked jobs that were appropriate for them and did part-time because they were encouraged to be wives and mothers without the stress of not being able to provide for their family.
idk man seems like a bunch of shit to me made up for optics. i mean you really can't tell what'd happen because all the information would probably be filtered through multiple layers of pro-Sovietshit, CIAuyghurtry, etc. But personally I don't buy that's how it works.
>No they fucking don't. Social issues, unless they are incredibly minor, are usually linked to economic problems. The main issue of, say, racial equality is equal social standing through equal economic standing. People getting lower pay or being rejected for jobs because of race is a social issue based on an economic problem. The Base (economy) is more major than the Superstructure (society). As I've said many times before, 90% of identity-politics problems about women's rights and black rights and whatever the fuck would be solved automatically by a change in the mode of production and economic organization, because most of these delusions by liberals are actually just part of a single greater class issue.
Again, John Doe won't give a fucking shit about his economy unless he genuinely feels connected. You're getting this shit seriously backwards. What happens when he doesn't have a community to stand within? He turns to product.
>inb4 "see then it's economic"
the cause is economic. but the solution needs to work it's way backwards. the solution is social. create a community, someone will focus on the community for his identity, consumerism is no longer accepted, and now companies need to focus on creating gooder and gooder shit for the sake of profit.
>Again, liberal capitalism with a rainbow coat of paint and virtue signalling is still capitalism, the WHOLE POINT of these liberal delusions is to distract from the fact that it's the ECONOMIC issues that are important, you wackadoo. It's like They Live but far less obvious.
It's more like trying to further their goals. If anything, Fascism is the solution and the furthering of society in Marx's idea of the dialectic; class cooperation under the idea of a better future in the philosophical norm. Then, after a good while and technology advances to make labour hyper-efficient, then socialism can arise through a near post-scarcity society.
>Since a switch to socialism (actual socialism and not whatever you think socialism is) involves Alt+F4ing the Elite upper class and seizing their assets - which are basically the majority of the worlds resources - and organizing them under a planned system… YES.
>planned system
that's what I call "Fascism." We all work together. Give the poor fucktons of guns and give them unions to hold the rich under the thread of violence with a lack of cooperation. The rich hold all the cards, so there'd be a state of deadlock when it comes to fucking eachother over, so the only way the two can progress is via working together, which leads to Fascism. This can increase progression of society so quickly it can lead to a classless society as work and the obtaining of food is no longer a challenge, but a guarantee.
>The elite command the government and prefer when the government only restricts those who are restricting their liberty to exploit people.
So again, give the unions a fuckton of rifles.
>A planned economic system, with organized government to provide stability? Buddy, you want socialism, REAL socialism like Marxist-Leninism or the like, not liberal frauds or social democrat half-asses. The ORIGINAL fascist ideology was essentially a breakaway from Marxism, but it's incomplete and flawed.
I've seen a video essay that Fascism is the only true concept of socialism, I have it lying around somewhere.

>>6702
>solving that issue out
It's never been an issue until liberals decided to LARP as socialists in the USA, which is why leftism in burgerland is good as dead.
>Workers in the 1950's probably more than likely did more strenuous physical work due to the absence of large-scale white-collar work
I suggest you watch Mad Men, there was plenty of White Collar Work at the time, and work hours are generally the same as is the work load (just different types), so that had no influence on free time. Porky doesn't need people to read or have time to educate themselves, they need dumbasses just smart enough to do their jobs and not question the system or its media narratives.
>through better nutrition, more cohesive societies
Again, that's something that is based on economic systems, you cannot have a cohesive society when everyone is constantly competing not to just be the best but to literally survive, even though we're supposed to be 'civilized'. Moreover Better nutrition requires an economic production system that can provide this and not deny food because they need to make a profit, capitalism has repeatedly failed at this, and fascism has also.
>It makes no sense how Muhammed can work a simple job and pay for his 9 children and wife, but native citizens can't find a way to support kids under one income
Abuse of the welfare system through having so many children and an unemployed wife while being below the poverty line and foreign. Like I said, ineffective and stupid, and the MAIN factor is economic incentive.
>all the information would probably be filtered through multiple layers of pro-Sovietshit, CIAuyghurtry
The fuck are you on about? The CIA has no reason to support the USSR given how they consistently attempted to sabotage and undermine it, and the USSR is not around to censor its archives. pics related
>John Doe won't give a fucking shit about his economy unless he genuinely feels connected
No shit Sherlock, see pic 4 related. Why do you think that the Soviet constitution guaranteed employment, housing and sustenance for all people?
Work, Land and Bread not good enough? How about having the assurance that you won't get thrown out of your home because of Mortgage or losing electricity and water because you didn't have the money to pay the bills, or that you go into debt because of an illness forcing you into the hospital.
>turns to product
Consumerist distraction
>someone will focus on the community for his identity
The point is that being so shallow in your identity that it goes to gender and skin color is reductive and retarded, and that a class unity is not only larger but actually matters, while anything else is a distraction, see the pyramids.
>Fascism is the solution and the furthering of society in Marx's idea of the dialectic; class cooperation under the idea of a better future in the philosophical norm. Then, after a good while and technology advances to make labour hyper-efficient, then socialism can arise through a near post-scarcity society.
I can see that you mean well but I don't think that's going to work, we don't need fascism especially when NazBols cover that better
>what I call "Fascism
But that's not fascism, that is socialism m8.
>Give the poor fucktons of guns and give them unions to hold the rich under the thread of violence with a lack of cooperation
That's the opposite of fascism, that's democratic socialism. Fascism is about class collaborationism with the upper class and it won't work the way you think, because a crowd of people with guns will be easy to fracture apart and control, the protests in the USA from Hippies to the Wall Street and BLM are all examples of this fractured stupidity, because only the middle and lower class is impacted in reality.
>give the unions a fuckton of rifles
America has more guns than it knows what to do with, doesn't help shit. Besides if the House of Congress showed anything, even a peaceful protest will be cracked down on if it fits the elite's needs.
> a video essay that Fascism is the only true concept of socialism
Sounds familiar but I disagree on that point though I'm too tired to go into it right now.

>>6710
yknow, maybe we arent so different after all.

>>6711
Perhaps. Frankly I tend to dislike the absolutism some people on /leftypol/ have in regards to self-called fascists, I believe that most 'fascists' are just socialists who strive for socialist ideas but capitalist propaganda has made them dislike the name socialism and instead associate with the superficially similar concept of fascism, that's why I actually bother to argue and explain instead of dismiss.

>>6712
Yeah, I think you're right on that one.

Do any one has the source of this image, if not is there books about the economical blockade the ussr suffered on its starting years ?.

>>6718
I think this is based on Mark Tauger's book but I can't find the excerpt

I was wondering about this
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1532036/North-Korea-locks-up-disabled-in-subhuman-gulags-says-UN.html
Apparently the disabled are also prohibited from having children in North Korea. But, that information seems to come solely from defectors. How much do we actually know about the situation of disabled people in NK?

>>6801
As far as I know from anecdotal resources (friends I know and rely on) the situation is basically
A) They don't have the resources for specialized facilities so sometimes the disabled (really disabled people) get placed in the equivalent of a retirement home. As for children it's mostly because those with genetic defects who won't have healthy children are disallowed, mostly because they can't support assisted care for this. It's a harsh but necessary pragmatism for the DPRK, not done out of some ideological dislike of the disabled.

Here's a pet project for leftychan: https://nintil.com/categories/soviet-union-series/

This guy writes for the Adam Smith Institute, so instant suspicion, but his sources seem solid. He even cites Nove for his section on food consumption. Can the people smarter than me please help on this?

>>6699
>The ORIGINAL fascist ideology was essentially a breakaway from Marxism, but it's incomplete and flawed.
Cringe
The """original""" fascists were right socdems, sorelians and other syndicalist faggots.
As far from marxism as you can get.

>>6712
>Frankly I tend to dislike the absolutism some people on /leftypol/ have in regards to self-called fascists, I believe that most 'fascists' are just socialists who strive for socialist ideas but capitalist propaganda has made them dislike the name socialism and instead associate with the superficially similar concept of fascism, that's why I actually bother to argue and explain instead of dismiss.
Double cringe.
Right socdems, nevermind actual dedicated fascists, are not "duped" into fighting against their own class interests. That is the biggest fucking lie.

They are fighting for their class interests - the interests of petty bourgeois possessor or labor aristocrat. If you're blind to this you will get the Luxembourg and Allende treatment.

>>7108
>cites Nove
Nove the Sovietologist?

>>6805
The DPRK has a more realistic and pragmatic view than the average western transhumanistoid reddit leftist/body positivity advocate.

>>7111
DPRK is in full siege mode. I'm really curious about their social dynamics considering all the social deficiencies of ML-type states that reproduced itself on numerous occasions.

At least they seem to be somewhat stable in their reproduction. For now.
They also seem to be on the verge of getting nukes with modern delivery systems which would make them a regional player. They also plan on building a ballistic submarine fleet.

They are a wild card in the region. The bet on isolating them and hoping that they would collapse seems to be biting the US in the ass.

>>7113
Why do attempts of left wing utopias always end up as right wing wet dreams?

>>7114
right wing wet dream is private property and social inequality

that's why I say it's very interesting where the norks are going

educated experts, professionals, etc. due to their position in the social division of labor tend to be right-wing
ML states have a tendency to reproduce this social strata, this labor aristocracy at the top of the political system, which in turn undermines the whole social system

As the DPRK political system is essentially the garden-variety ML political system - it has essentially the same dynamic which in the long run should lead to the same political crisis

I'm really curious what form this crisis would take, especially with capitalist system on the downward trend

>>7115
Social inequality is a fact of life, not a feature of this or that mode of production. There certainly hasn't been a socialist society characterized by actual social equality, despite it being the reigning virtue of powerless western fags who fancy themselves as revolutionaries.

'Private property ' as the rw wet dream is your cope strawman so that you can frame arguments regarding individual freedom and autonomy in a manner that best serves your own slavish techno bugman perspective

>>7116
>Social inequality is a fact of life, not a feature of this or that mode of production.
And yet educated experts seem to be really butthurt at socialism for its tendency to levelling, contrary to "the fact of life"
this peculiar behavior is reproduced across all ML states that we have data for

>There certainly hasn't been a socialist society characterized by actual social equality
and yet there was enough social equality to make educated experts butthurt

>'Private property ' as the rw wet dream is your cope strawman
private property is the primary mean to maintaining social inequality
inequality gets eroded otherwise, as can be seen in case of ML states

>>7118
>'when people are free, they are unequal. when they are equal, they are unfree.'

Where have I heard that before?

>>7118
>Tldr 'socialism' is a system designed to cater to and expand mediocrity. Experts or anyine with talent will either try to escape or will try to subvert socialism, or will just not put in any effort.

Jeez, I can't for the life of me understand why this state bolshevism thing didn't work out

>>7118
>Well, you see, socialism was amazing. Unfortunately, there were still experts because (reasons). Those experts collectively decided that their countries were too equal, because experts are inherently bad/corrupt, i guess. And, because they wanted more inequality, they liberalized their economies after tricking everyone in their amazing egalitarian societies into not resisting too much. Whoever did resist the implementations of policies designed to increase inequality was labeled a reactionary by people who were either capitalist grifters or people in the amazing society who were to dumb to know any better.

Such a deep analysis comrade

>>7118
>inequality gets eroded otherwise, as can be seen in case of ML states

Inb4: it's a strawman to say that much of muhMarxism is just an orientation towards ghey egalitarianism

<No, faggot. This is actually what self described communists believe.

My sides at thinking that inequality, especially of power, eroded away rather than simply took on new or moderated forms in the PRC, USSR, DPRK, Cuba, etc.

>And yet educated experts seem to be really butthurt at socialism….
1000% chance this clown is vaxxxedmaxxedmaskfag CDC truster, but that's a different topic….
>…for its tendency to levelling, contrary to "the fact of life". this peculiar behavior is reproduced across all ML states that we have data for.
Also doesn't fuck, has never been to any of these countries. Some dork in the west who thinks he's smart because he's read some books that no one cares about.

But let's explore this topic further. It's both true that no socialist country is/was close to an egalitarian paradise, and there is less economic inequality in these countries compared to their politically liberalized counterparts. Furthermore, they all, to different degrees, have flourishing private market economies not much different in daily operation than 'capitalist' countries.

So rather than adhering to some ghey fever dream about neverneverworld mode of production or even striving to eliminate the market economy in its entirely, in practice it veers back every time a degree of economic liberalism, even when nominal communist parties remain in power.

>Inb4
>b b but before l liberalization, u u r-revisionist

Ya, yes, that relatively short period when people were chronically malnutritioned.

One defining characteristics of these countries is often some degree of nationalistic cultural, social, economic policies while walking a balancing line of 'independence' on the international level.The don't have migrant climate crisis rapists running rampaging everywhere. They don't even tolerate that from their own people. Their education and propaganda is optimistic but stridently national - various people must work together as one, to adopt and live up to a common identity. Compare this to the cynical politics of division underneath moral crusader grifts in the west. In short, these 'socialist' countries operate (in practice) upon the basis of social-cohesion and national strength and unity as a guiding principle. Having less inequality serves this end, but isn't *the* end.

<TDLR: aes is based; ur a fag

>>7120
>Where have I heard that before?
in your book of empty platitudes lol?

>>7121
>Tldr 'socialism' is a system designed to cater to mediocrity.
to the people at the very bottom of society, yes nazoid

>Jeez, I can't for the life of me understand why this state bolshevism thing didn't work out
it didn't work out because proletariat lost the class war due to petty bourgs controlling the state machine

it should learn this lesson if it ever wants emancipation, because it was paid with blood
proletariat always pays with blood, and it always will
this is the lesson

>>7126
>My sides at thinking that inequality, especially of power, eroded away rather than simply took on new or moderated forms in the PRC, USSR, DPRK, Cuba, etc.
there was less inequality - fact
and what inequality there was, was mainly due to the black market

and the trend was not to more inequality - fact

and all the labor aristocrats wanted to jump ship and defect to the west for more gibs - fact

ML-type states are inherently unstable constructs, there is no new sustainable "moderate" form of inequality as collapse after collapse of such states has shown

>but that's a different topic…
yes please, leave your antivax spergout to another thread lol

>Also doesn't fuck
also leave your incel spergout for another thread

>has never been to any of these countries
majority of them no longer exist lol

>Some dork in the west who thinks he's smart because he's read some books that no one cares about.
says westoid nazoid kek

>Furthermore, they all, to different degrees, have flourishing private market economies not much different in daily operation than 'capitalist' countries.
I didn't know central directive planning is how capitalism "daily operates" kek
no markets in the means of production and labor is capitalism now kek

>So rather than adhering to some ghey fever dream about neverneverworld mode of production or even striving to eliminate the market economy in its entirely, in practice it veers back every time a degree of economic liberalism, even when nominal communist parties remain in power.
every time petty bourgs tried to "veer it back" it led to a major crisis and they either got couped or the whole building collapsed lol

>One defining characteristics of these countries is often some degree of nationalistic cultural, social, economic policies while walking a balancing line of 'independence' on the international level.
what "nationalistic" policies? Be concrete nazoid

>The don't have migrant climate crisis rapists running rampaging everywhere.
Please leave your migrant rapists nazoid spergout for another thread

>Their education and propaganda is optimistic but stridently national - various people must work together as one, to adopt and live up to a common identity.
in case of soviet union it was multiple nationalities working as one
is this nationalism to you nazoid? We both know it's not kek

also, is your petty-bourg nazoid ass really wants to work together "as one" with "mediocrities" when state owns almost everything for their benefit? I don't think so kek

>In short, these 'socialist' countries operate (in practice) upon the basis of social-cohesion and national strength and unity as a guiding principle.
contrary to your invented reality nazoid, "strong national identity" was the end of the soviet union
just facts

>Having less inequality serves this end, but isn't *the* end.
tendency to less inequality is just the result of a system not based on exploitation

this, in the final analysis, is the sufficient condition for every nazoid to strive to destroy this system
this, in the final analysis, is the ultimate reason why every nazoid is my enemy

>>7138
You tell that nazoid, comrade

Which 'nazoids' reintroduced the market economy in Russia, China, Cuba, etc.

If only they had some acheivementless drug addict western midwit who believes they know everything running the show instead of people like Deng or Khrushchev, then I'm sure things would have worked out for the better.

>what "nationalistic" policies? Be concrete nazoid
Tfw you've never set food in any of the countries you claim to know so much about. I guess when then dunning Kruger is strong enough, you have to add a moral component as well.
>I'm smart and you're a bad person, because I say so. Checkmate, nazoid.

>>4210

Sorry for spamming this, i need to explain myself.

I've been seen this talking point being repeated by anarchists and liberals. One guy recommended me this book which it stated that:

> "The Soviet Institute of the Economy estimates that as much as 3 percent of industrial production and from 5 to 25 percent of raw material output is falsified."

> "Statistics are also distorted by outright falsification of data. Not long ago the entire country was outraged by the "cotton affair": in Uzbekistan cotton production was overstated by a full million tons, almost 20 percent of actual production."

How we can debunk this? Is this real? PLEASE GUYS I DONT WANT TO BE A LIBERAL

>>7517
there is no debunking, soviet economic statistics were shit, with firms and, as you pointed out, even whole fucking republics reporting false figures to get gibs by meeting and overshooting plan targets

and that is not even touching on the specifics of GDP statistics in centrally planned economies where prices do not reflect SNLT but are pulled out of the planner's ass after countless lobbyists had their way with him

which is especially funny when Cockshott brings up those GDP figures as an argument, even tho retard perfectly knows there was no in-built mechanism to bring prices in accordance with SNLT like in capitalism, so Soviet GDP means jack shit

>>7517
this is in general a problem of reliability of economic information which I consider the main problem for any planned economy

while capitalism doesn't need reliable information to arrive at SNLT due to competition, planning economy REQUIRES it

which in turn brings a whole bunch of questions about what type of society could potentially provide such reliable information

but I can tell you one thing for ceratain lol - vanguardoid informationally repressed soyciety is not one of them

>>7517
<"The Soviet Institute of the Economy estimates that as much as 3 percent of industrial production and from 5 to 25 percent of raw material output is falsified."
I don't know about those figures, but they probably did have inaccurate accounting.
Capitalist companies cook their books too, so capitalism isn't looking any better.

>>7518
GDP figures are a distortion of reality if you use it to gauge production, but probably less so in the Soviet Case.

In capitalism GDP increases
- if somebody buys and sells stock certificates
- if a factory burns down and the capitalist collects fire-insurance money.
- GDP increases with rising rents.
In all those cases no production is taking place. The Soviets didn't have stock markets, and not much rent or insurance. So Soviet GDP figures probably deviate much less from production than capitalist GDP figures.

To be fair GDP was never intended to compare different economies, you were only supposed to use it for tracking the development of a specific economy over time. Also it wasn't always as shit. If you invent a metric, eventually people will figure out how to game the system, and then you have to deprecate the metric. GDP (Gross Domestic Product) has largely been abandoned in favor of PPP (Purchasing Power Parity), which is a much better metric. At least for the time being, eventually PPP numbers will be gamed as well.

>statistics in centrally planned economies where prices do not reflect SNLT
Calculated prices in socialist centrally planned economies generally are better a tracking rational resource allocation optimums.
>but are pulled out of the planner's ass after countless lobbyists had their way with him
The Soviets did indeed have artificially low food prices, because of political pressure, and that did cause them some problems. However Special interest lobbyism putting their thumb on the scale, that's more of a capitalism thing.

>>7520
>but probably less so in the Soviet Case.
Capitalism has a mechanism of competition to drive prices to SNLT.

What mechanism did your vanguardoid shit had?

>In capitalism GDP
All that can be accounted for

You can just take FIRE out

While in Soviet case you need to fucking look at energy consumption and shit to even get a rough estimate of output lol

>Calculated prices in socialist centrally planned economies generally are better a tracking rational resource allocation optimums.
Maybe in your imagination lol. In ACTUALLY EXISTING SOYCIALISM nobody even had ANY IDEA in what range SNLT was lol.

>However Special interest lobbyism putting their thumb on the scale, that's more of a capitalism thing.
Again with your fantasies, vanguardoid. At least read memoirs of the head of Gosplan about how five year plans were actually "negotiated" lol.

I trust Baibakov more than your westoid ass.

>>7521
The Soviets lacked the computer resources to fully plan their economy, they still had to rely on partial markets.

Sufficient computer resources exist now, it's possible to make the planning system calculate the prices you would get from a perfect competition, without any market distortions from monopolies.

You only need the consumer feed-back to know whether people want a given product for a given price.

Markets lack a signalling feature for consumers to signal that they want a product that nobody is making yet. I don't know whether that can be added to markets, but for a socialist planning system, it's very easy to add this because there already is a polling system for surplus allocation priority, that makes it trivial.

Many other economic aspects will become easier too, you'll be able to establish new workplace simply by convincing workers to start contributing labor-inputs. That'll be much simpler than the complicated ways of starting a business.

The purpose of the vanguard will only be to bootstrap sortition democracy and socialist cybernetic planning, they won't have to make political and economic decisions. After the system runs it will reproduce it self. You won't need heavy handed political repression to keep it going, civil society will be able to defend this effortlessly.

If you're trying to convince anyone of socialism being right, "debunking" is a shitty way to go about it. It's a disgusting turbolib habit which always assumes imperious institutional authority to tell you what facts are, without any judgement or independent verification. Against shameless liars, they don't care if you debunk them, because their arguments are not intended to appeal to anything rational. They will invent new lies, and the truth is always irrelevant. The way to stop the shameless liars is to expose the full extent of their depravity and failure as human beings, rather than this habitual "snark" that is an extreme faggotry.

That said, debunking anticommunist arguments is kind of pointless because the communists debunked themselves by failing to make clear - or seeming not to know - what communism stood for. This is mostly because, after all of the posturing, the USSR and USA were far more similar than they were made out to be in the grand narrative theory of history. The Russians and those in their orbit identified communism with technology and their conception of mass politics. It was responsive enough to public demand compared to the old way where the rulers were openly democidal and slaughtered peasants without regard. The Tsars were a monstrous regime given this strange PR by anticommunist fags, and they are fags. Communism failed from within, and many of the anticommunist talking points came direct from the former Soviet Union and ideologues, whose objective was power more than anything good. Of course, all of the people in the USSR who wanted something decent out of it - and that tends to be most people who have an obvious self-interest in not letting this faggotry take over everything - were left holding the bag so that a few thieves could mock them. Most of the anticommunist arguments to "debunk" the USSR could just as well be used to dismantle the US so that the same thieves - sometimes the exact same thieves that plundered the former USSR - can do the same to the next large country, then the next, and so on. Nazis do not need to be creative, and that's what they are - goose stepping, motherfucking fags who have a fetish for this shit.

If you want an argument against "capitalist idealism", it's better to not even regard their facile arguments against communism, and attack capitalism on its own terms. Since the anticommunist retards don't have any core, and are perfectly happy to cannibalize capital to feed their thievery, it's practically a free win to describe capitalism as what it is - if only doing so didn't mark you as "retarded", for not getting with the program of kicking down which has always been humanity's world-historical function. That's all humans ever wanted to do with politics and power, and that's exactly what they built. Anyone who wanted something different was shouted down, and there was no defense against that. Humans are vicious animals by nature. The exception always arises when humans realize that their nature is rotten, and they must act in spite of it. Fags do not reach this basic level of thinking.

>>7522
So I might try some of these arguments, since Cockshott Gang is at it again.

I'll tell you why cybernetic planning was scrapped in the USSR - because the plan of the higher ups knew that the same thing was being done globally, and there was no further use for duplicating effort. The new economic plan called for eliminating most of humanity, who were useless to their preferred forms of society. After Khrushchev, all the upper rungs of the Soviet system thought about was how to sell out and get out while the getting was good, and then you had the scientists who wanted to be fed goodies forever and pissed on those who weren't worthy in their view. There's no "planning" that gets around that basic imperative that the classes that mattered followed, that the philosophies given to them insisted was natural and normal. When you uphold an amoral view of history and what we do, you're going to get the expected result. Gee, no one saw ZAT coming, right?

No one is ignorant of what the people want. The people, if they believe speaking of what they want is at all safe and not likely to get them killed, will tell you what they want, and have been willing to say this without too much prodding or effort. The rulers and favored classes never ever want to give the people what they wanted, because what the people wanted was security - which means they would hold a share of wealth, no questions asked or insinuations made. That would be the first condition before anything else is considered. Once the people have what they wanted out of it, they have no reason to regard the state or "society in the abstract" as something worth their efforts. Sure, there is a basic level of decency that allows society to exist, but beyond that, people want security. The Soviet system provided some level of that for enough people, and those who had no security were never going to be allowed that ever again. The Marxist view of humanity was just one of many views among higher society that held humanity in contempt and treated the lower orders accordingly. That's entirely on their own terms, and that spoke to the interests of the middle class generally. Everyone who lived through the USSR, and people who were alive then will tell you this, would tell you that the ideology and "the system" was rife with opportunism, rather than the source of good. The people who boost the system make abundantly clear they want the system for them, and blame the poor for not dying fast enough and staying in their lane. They're only thinking of their cushy position and how to get it back. If you were a grunt rejected from university, you were regarded as subhuman from cradle to grave. It worked the same in every country, so Marxism was not unique in that regard. That's the human spirit. That's the grand result of civilization. That's what humans really are. History judged and made that judgement clear from the evidence. And so, there was nothing to do but let the plan run its course. All of the arguments that this was about managerial incompetence are silly. Planning the economy is not difficult. It could be done by a small army of bureaucrats who would be, for all intents and purposes, slaves and openly treated as such. Bureaucracies usually do promote a slave mentality among their workers, so it is not difficult to find people who will carry out the desultory informational work. That's why you can find clerical workers whose job for the government is to figure things out. It turns out governments are very good at finding information, as they would not survive. No government in history is so willfully blind as any of you retards seem to believe. That's so fucking Germanic. So, the government of the USSR was quite aware of what happened in their country, and how to manage resource flows. Managing resources, if it were done optimally, is a trivially solved problem in any era. It is the insinuation ad nauseum that is used as an excuse to say "it cannot be done", when it could have been done since Antiquity and we'd have been spared all of this. If the terror ever ended, though, that would be the end of the human project. The people who are no longer tortured would start speaking to each other, compare notes, and see that whatever promises the rulers make are always holding actions to do what they're doing now - cull the poor who they always believed were life unworthy of life. The only people who really wanted it to be different are the lowest class, who are so desperate that they'd actually believe humans could be different. Labor will always remain self-interested and interested in their true associations rather than abstraction notions of the general will or anything you seem to believe is dominant.

The market is not a planning mechanism and never was. Firms must plan their behavior in the same way a home-maker plans her expenditures. They do not actually believe the world is ruled by abstractions - and then believe that narratives far removed from the original abstraction actually has causative power in this spooky, Germanic way. The planning of a firm is not the same as a home, because firms have very different imperatives they meet. Large firms that hold monopolies have different imperatives from an imagined firm in "ideal capitalism", and this has long been known. Those are always prevalent over any ideological conceit about "the system", as if systems operated through spooky action.

All of this relies on portraying the USSR as this strange ideological unicorn "totally against the natural order", rather than what it actually was - a country modernizing much like the United States in the same time, doing so in very different conditions. The capitalists or what counted as such in the USSR were told they had to do business through the Party and the state, and this was seen as perfectly reasonable to those who stayed behind. Since the Party has its own imperatives - and they were the imperatives of the Party rather than "the state" in the abstract as Germanism insists - business was for a time subdued because the society was oriented towards aims it deemed necessary and useful. The idea wasn't to micromanage everyone's lives through GOSPLAN into eternity, and say this is immaculate "perfect information in perfect systems" - another Germanic perversion of sense. Planning through the Party and bureaucracy was a lot more effective for a lot more people than this idiocy that is done now. If you look at the USA between 1940 and 1970, the interested parties were some imagined executives in top hats or doing cocaine fueled orgies and scams. They were assholes in suits and intel ghouls who knew exactly what they wanted, and laugh at how easy it was to cajole retards into thinking they had a choice in any of this. The US was so big and didn't have its industry wrecked by Nazi invasion that it could tolerate a level of "market anarchy" - and this was largely the large middle class holding on to what they already held, rather than the market generating anything. Capital by that time had been exposed as a wholly unproductive "system" that was so ruinous that FDR had to work extra hard to get these people out of their own way just so he could helm this beast that won the war. By the end of the war, oligarchy and monopoly were effectively running a planned economy and this was expected and normal. If you're in that world that gained standing from the revolution of the 1930s, you knew exactly what side of the war you were on and where your imperatives were, what you were to do next. No part of that, in the US or USSR, involved "the people". China had to spend some time in "confused fighting" to subdue its mass uprisings, but of course, China is a very different country and countries are not ideal forms that are reproducible so easily.