I already know about that concept.

You can trace the failure of the USSR back:

Capitalist reforms after 1985 completely ruined the economy because the entire infrastructure was not built for capitalism. This destroyed the state and made the system collapse.

-> Why did these capitalist reforms happen?

Because the light industry planning was deemed inadequate and consumers were getting anxious while comparing their own economy to the USA in this regard. The USSR economy wasn't complete s*** like some people claim, the major problem they had were luxury goods and some consumer items like cars or electronics being too expensive/taking too long to be delivered.

-> Why was the planning bad?

Because they had bad information to work off of, and slow communication. You can only plan as well as your information is. If your inputs are crap, your outputs will be crap too.

-> Why wasn't planning reformed first?

Because cybernetic planning would have made the system more transparent and more democratic.

-> Why was the party able to refuse the cybernetic reforms?

Because since Stalin, the internal democracy of the CPSU was extremely lacking and dissent was discouraged. The CPSU lost the connection to the common population. They became "bureaucrats of the revolution" who were more-or-less effective at running things, but did not have any visions on how to press forwards in their transition towards communism.

This led to a stagnation, both in terms of innovation and ideology, in the late 70s that set the stage for glasnost and perestroika.

You can link all the economic problems back to lack of democratic participation and institutions. Note that I don't mean elections or something with that but a true polling of the people and their needs and desires, both in economics and in all other spheres of life.

Disagree on the central planning still, but it's irrelevant if you'll take the cyberneticspill

sir this is a ihop

It is true that there never was an actual stagnation of GDP. It's just that the GDP growth rate slowed down a bit

If anyone reads Revelation 18, it's pretty much what the article is saying.

Powerful

They divided groups of people. Capitalism is atomizing down to a person.

for a system thats supposedly so good you’d think socialism wouldnt get slapped around by daddy capitalism as often as it does

just watch this

"for a system thats supposedly so good you’d think capitalism wouldnt get slapped around by daddy feudalism as often as it does"

-if KTT existed from 1300s until 1700s

welcome to the 21st century

we have motorized vehicles now!

So you think capitalism will remain the dominant mode of production until the end of time? You think socialism is discredited because it couldn't appear right away when capitalism itself took several centuries to replace feudalism?

Who would think a poor country would get dominated by a rich country

ive seen hasan reacting to this vid lol

im not necessarily saying this is a mute point, but it also doesnt contradict my original point

im talking about systems not nations

the ussr was poor as f*** right lmao

no i think socialism wont work for a while cuz its been attempted for over 100 yrs now

idk if well ever see a full blown communist planet but were obviously nearing the path of socialism every day

EDIT: mixed economies>>>>>

Before 1991, the USSR was the fastest growing developed country in the world. Annual growth rates in the mid-1980s were 0.9% compared to only 0.1% in Europe or 1.1% in the US.

and it still got daddied

A system never gets slapped around, it's the countries that operate under those systems, so yes you are. Especially if they all ban together against the USSR lol..

Also yes, the USSR was poor compared to the West, pre-revolutionary Russia was about as developed as Latin America was, which it did eventually surpass (thanks to socialism):

Latin America’s GDP per capita was $1,332 (1990 US dollars), almost equal to the USSR’s $1,370. By 1989, the Latin American figure had reached $4,886, but average income in the Soviet Union had climbed far higher, to $7,078 (Allen, 2003). Public ownership and planning had raised living standards to a higher level than capitalism had in Latin America, despite an equal starting point.

So you're just trolling, nvm pls ignore my post

if your nation is under siege (sanctions) and constantly under the threat of being destroyed by foreign powers realistically would you have the chance to truly flourish and grow?

pre rev russia was feudalist so i dont see how thats relevant

im saying if socialism is so based that list of belligerents would be flipped

The generation that witnessed the collapse of historical socialism is getting old. The new generation won't have this historical baggage and don't care about all that stuff. This is why communist parties in the West are either all boomers or zoomers btw. So we could see some countries, probably in the third world, turn socialist within our lifetimes definitely. Chile just voted in a libertarian socialist into office for example. Of course he cannot change Chile's system on his own but it is for me a sign that these things still resonate.

yes because the collapse of the USSR which even anti communist historians call one of the greatest humanitarian tragedies in history is totally funny

ima directly answer ur question and say no

i think its obvious this is not my point tho but w/e