The Soviets did the exact same to dissenters, and invaded bordering nations

those qualities of life do not exist without a source of cheap foreign labor and goods that can be imported for cheap and given to its citizens for cheap while domestic laborers can enjoy whatever production is still protected in their own country

While the labour is cheaper elsewhere, it shouldnt be assumed that those source countries will not also develop

There are many case studies where once developing countries providing cheap labour have developed themselves

Eventually robots will do the manufacturing and we will all transition to a knowledge economy

socialism is by definition: more democratic than capitalism

OP:, the Soviets made major social improvements yeah but also these improvements were because their government was nicer to people not because their economy was better

Me: Cool so I have an iPhone 8 instead of 12 but everyone around me has a job and isn’t homeless. Yeah I’ll take that

What level of major economic development exists in major producers like Bangladesh? or India? Malaysia? Indonesia?

Workers aren't protected and rarely see the wages that they deserve, and much of the "development" (acquisiton of Western luxury goods) occurs in middle annd low-upper class families who own factories and exploit laborers.

In theory sure

The ussr was not more democratic than most capitalist nations though

Taiwan used to be a major producer of cheap goods but it transitioned to a developed economy

RE those other countries, you should see where they were just 10 years ago, plus work is ongoing and trade agreements were attempted which would have handled this. A lot of it is legal and institutional

yes. the reason these institutional frameworks are in place is because they reinforce and expand the hegemony of those in power, and as a capitalist nation, why would the government want to lose power?

Then why did countries such as taiwan manage it? Yoire not addressing the improvements that came about

Once even the developed nations at the time of the industrial revolution endured a similar transition that was in some ways worse (as much of the tech and knowledge we have now didnt exist)

It's development, we need laws to smooth it but the lives of the people at the bottom have also improved

You ensure economic development, then you introduce a redistributive welfare state

“Just a step behind” no they weren’t. The HDI for the Soviet Union in 1990 (the earliest year I have data for plus it’s peak before the collapse a year later) was .735. In america it was .865. By 2020 it was .824 in Russia and .926 for America. In other words, the gap has actually decreased since then

I always laugh when I see commies talking about how great Soviet Union was when my grandpa literally brought toilet paper from business trips from Moscow because our city didn’t have s***
And it’s not like we live in a middle of nowhere, there was like 700k people living here back then

Is this a satire or what

Nothing about being nice. You wouldn’t have an “iPhone 8 instead of 12” because you are misrepresenting the performance gap caused by centrally planned economies. There were still very poor people in the Soviet Union. There were still people who were effectively homeless in the Soviet Union. The reason “everyone had a job” is because a lot of jobs that would have otherwise not been accepted by currently unemployed Americans were forced upon Soviets because they didn’t have a choice to not work

Why are you like this now? I made this thread to prevent more people from being converted like you were

This is how I took the thread too tbh

the fact people have to go on tangents not related to OPs point shows he ultimately won

Taiwan spent 10 years using US aid as nearly 40% of all domestic investment in the 1950's. Additionally, social measures like land reform and capital/welfare redistribution, universal education, government planning all contributed to a strong and well supported worker base in the country.

once again. socialism is a democratic way for workers to organize within a country and contribute to its economic growth in a way that can also meet the material conditions required by the workers that create economic growth. that is the entire point of socialism. i dont get why there's so many miscoceptions over what the entire point of it is

won what? is there a competition or a game going on?

Nah I don't have expertise in each country's GDP's so I can't really refute your claims or a***ysis, even though I was trying to digest the points you were making, I think the way you're trying to separate those gains under those leaders from socialism is too nuanced for me to really agree with you, I mean obviously, there's context and other factors than strictly ideologies, yeah. But like other people ITT said there were other improvements toward equality under those leaders that surpassed other nations I just don't think it's that strong of an argument

Oh I totally agree with the land reform and that kind of program. I'm just saying socialism isnt what got them there

Also socialism itself isnt bad, OP stated that their argument was against CENTRAL PLANNING

you can have socialism without central planning

socialistic policies 100% placed the Taiwanese in a position to allow them to develop the nation while keeping workers happy

imagine if there had been rudimentary public education, limited healthcare, and no land reform like we have in america right now

It's just kinda overly specific to GDP for my taste and isn't that compelling to me, but im probably biased anyway,

I'd just say that 'remarkable growth' isn't NOT due to socialist leadership,

Although I know @OP and I could most likely agree that the situation is more complicated than absolutist claims