>>486950>That's not true at all. The average soviet citizen waited decades for housing and automobiles while party members got the best houses and cars right away.You are overstating your case a little, the delays weren't that bad. However you are not entirely wrong the soviet system didn't do particularly well for consumer items. You definitely can't organize the production of consumer goods like heavy industry. You are entirely wrong about Soviet housing tho, that was a massive success. Capitalist countries that had a wealth and development level comparable to the Soviet system had over 50% of their population living in slums. The Soviet apparent blocks were small and the massive cement housing units were dull and dreary, but they had reliable electricity, heating, fresh water, plumbing and some degree of personal space. Slums didn't have that and mostly don't to this day.
>lol that's the lefty equivalent of believing Hitler was What the ? Oh i get it, Hitler must be compared to Stalin. It's ideologically mandatory, no matter how nonsensical.
>It's the only way to do it if you think about it. Giving the MoP directly to the people just means nobody will work and the project will not even get off the ground. Having an ultra-authoritarian state turn the citizens into slave laborers is the only way to get any productivity at all after private property has been abolished.<Public sector economy is slaveryNow you're just trolling.
It is somewhat true that the Soviets never reached the communist goal of organizing the economy without wage-labor, but that isn't slavery. Your grasp on economic relations is dogshit.
>Inequality between worthless peasants perhaps but not inequality between the worthless peasants and the people running the state. That is the wrong metric to fetishize anyway. You would prefer that everyone has a bicycle rather than have a Mustang and let your neighbor have a Ferrari? It's true that Soviet cars were boring and less sophisticated, but the Soviets had amazing public transport. I'm not convinced this difference was caused by economic ideology. Russia is geographically enormous and maintaining a nice road system that would have generated a car culture like in the US and Europe was impractical. You need nice roads to get good cars, if the roads suck nobody cares about cars, and everybody prefers riding the train.
The rise in inequality in the west means that fewer people will be able to afford a car, once most people have no choice but to ride the buss, most people will no longer care about car infrastructure and that means all the rich people with their fancy cars will have no place to drive anymore.
>You're just as bad as the other guy. I gave you the reasons if you can't attack the actual argument then go away and think about it instead of making up fake arguments you do know how to attack.I don't get why you trash talk the Cubans. Their Socialist system is infinitely better than that butcher Batista they overthrew. And given the conditions imposed on Cuba by the economic blockade, they are doing surprisingly well.
>Because the demos loves living in poverty with no internet and their only hope of escape is to risk their lives rafting to Florida which many eventually end up attempting.Cuba is a tiny island being bullied by a huge superpower. They can't have nice things because the US blocks them from trading. The problem is caused by the US government not the Cuban one. The irony is that the Cubans probably would have done some Dengism type market liberalization mirroring China, if it weren't for the embargo.
>You can do both those things on TikTok and X. And more importantly if you setup your own website to publish this information the state won't kick your door down and drag you to a jailcell.That has literally happened in the west, people have been arrested and charged with terrorism for fucking tweets. The worst is probably the UK especially since Starmer slithered into power. Another egregious example that comes to mind was in Germany were a elderly Jewish lady got arrested for holding up a sign that said "Jews against genocide" and they tried to charge her with inciting antisemitism.
>State censorship in places like Cuba is not "oh no the billionaire who owns facebook deleted my post" it's "you're in jail now for disagreeing with the government".I already conceded the point that bourgeois free-speech as in free market press is structurally better than Soviet style press. But the west is no longer upholding bourgeois press freedoms. As long as the Zionist lobby can rampage through the western political system, you can forget about riding your high horse.
If you count Israel as part of the western sphere, they're breaking records in killing journalists, their "military censor" is worse than anything the 20th century soviets type state censors have done by like an order of magnitude. They arrested an American freelance journalist for covering the missile impacts in Israel during the brief exchange of hostilities with Iran a few months ago. He published a video that showed the exact same missile crater as was shown on mainstream media and for that they tried to charge him with treason. He probably only got out because of political pressure.
>A female who won the birth lottery shows her ass on Only Fans for 2 minutes and makes more money than a school teacher earns in a year. How do you still pretend that value comes from labor in this scenario?The average income from e-thotting is something like 100-200 bucks a month, and it doesn't last long, maybe a couple of years or so. Economically it's simulated intimacy as a service. I guess in econ-technical terms it's non-productive-labor because the sensation of intimacy is fleeting or something, and there is no accumulation happening. I do get that this is late stage capitalism dystopian stuff that seems like it could belong in a cyberpunk novel from the 80s. I understand that a lot of it is scammy models and psychologically abusive customers. I guess it's not all bad either, there was a lot more violence in strip-clubs.
However all of this has very little to do with the Labor theory of value, which states that average commodity prices correlate with the average labor inputs in production. When you follow this line of argument all the way to the end you'll end up trying to disprove labor theory of value by saying that in capitalism profits aren't evenly distributed. We can now argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, by pointing out that there is a specific sub-current of Marxist economists that do uphold profit equalization, which probably is wrong, but since that isn't necessary to prove the Labor-theory of value, this is a rather pointless exercise in tedium.