Synopsis

5y

What subjects

Y0rn

5y

War/conflict, human rights/rule of law situation in countries etc.
Dont even get more than 1 page lol

And every f***ing thread on capitalism /socialism goin crazy. Only terrorist attacks in the Western world prob get more pages. If its in the rest of the world ktt doesnt give af either

Y0rn

5y

War/conflict, human rights/rule of law situation in countries etc.
Dont even get more than 1 page lol

And every f***ing thread on capitalism /socialism goin crazy. Only terrorist attacks in the Western world prob get more pages. If its in the rest of the world ktt doesnt give af either

Synopsis

5y

do u know what root causes are

Y0rn

5y

Yeah yeah yeah

newgodlevel

5y

read "Why Nations Fail" - it's far from a Communist book but it explains why countries have had trouble developing their economies despite their resources.

Where have free markets created a rich country with no resources that didn't depend on imperialism and financial exploitation?

newgodlevel

5y

because I understand the limitations of neoclassical economics and because anyone can see how centrally planned economies have managed to threaten the United States in the last century

newgodlevel

5y

1.Social democracy hasn't come to the U.S because private capital dominates both of its political parties. That isn't an accident.

2.The ruling class is those who own capital, who shape the country to the interests of their private property. Quite different from vanguard party of Communists trying to abolish the concept of private property.

3. Comparing wages in a socialist country with that of a capitalist is asinine because they have completely different systems of allocating resources. The important concept is living standards, which grew steadily in the USSR and often outpaced the West, shown in that paper I sent. The USSR had nationalized healthcare for instance (something the U.S still lacks) which would not be reflected in a wage comparison.

Enpax

5y

I didn’t even mention neoclassical economics. This thread isn’t about how the Chile model is the best or how Bolivia is a failure (not that I think either of that is true) or anything it’s strictly talking against central planning. Yeah it was a threat to the US on a social level too but idc about that

newgodlevel

5y

your conception of markets vs. central planning is neoclassical, whether you mention that word specifically or not

Enpax

5y

1. Social democracy could still exist even if private property is accumulated in the hands of a few. I’m sure they’d be willing to make concessions if a strong enough movement was there and didn’t threaten their existence like actual socialism

2. The vanguard party of communists is initially composed of workers maybe, but more often than not power begins to be centralized within a certain group of people within that party at the expense of the actual workers. No matter how much better working conditions were compared to the tsar, at the end of the day you still have a new boss to control your life

3. Once again, living standards were not higher in the USSR than in the west. Nationalized healthcare, education are hardly points seeing as western countries not named America also have these things. The standard life as dictated by household consumption per capita in the Soviet Union was never going to reach western levels under its initial system because of the innate problems with allocating consumer goods under economic planning

Enpax

5y

Do you believe that if Gorbachev hadn’t opened the markets, the Soviet Union would still be up and running

newgodlevel

5y

1. Yes it can happen, but where would you even get started? All the political parties and trade unions are beholden to capital, and no-one else can compete with their corporate funding. It's rigged from the start.

2. You can't have political democracy without economic democracy. Where there's inequality, there will be people abusing their resources at the expense of others. Communist leaders at least are trying to change that, whereas Western politicians don't even recognise that problem.

3. Again, comparing the U.S to the USSR is ridiculous when their starting positions were so different. The USSR was making steady progress until WW2 devastated their economy and workforce, whilst the U.S came in late and was the only major economy left in good standing, allowing them to essentially cannibalize the global economy.

Enpax

5y

1. It doesn’t even need to be a Nordic style social democracy, so long as universal healthcare, education, housing are ensured. Based on the growing popularity of these ideals among some in the Democratic Party, I don’t think it’s as impossible as you’re making it seem

2. Communist countries were neither politically nor economically democratic, but there’s nothing I could possibly tell you to convince you of that so whatever

3. Again, you’re the one who started comparing the growth rate and living standards of russia to the US and western world. My OP was strictly comparing it to countries on the same starting point as it

newgodlevel

5y

1. The Democrats did everything they could do stop Bernie Sanders because that's what their donors wanted. Even the most tepid social reforms will be resisted because someone out there could lose money.

2. I don't know why you're having trouble with this concept; nobody has ever achieved economic democracy or classless society, but the Communists were WORKING TOWARDS IT. No other ideology even recognises those things as goals to strive for. And it's not something that can be achieved overnight.

3. The first thing I said in this thread was quoting your comparison between income inequality in Russia and the U.S

Enpax

5y

1. Biden’s platform is already the most progressive in a minute. Whether it’s good enough or he’s actually gonna do even half of it isn’t the point, but these ideas are gaining more on more traction. If Obamacare, which had to get rid of its public option a decade ago could pass, idk why at least a public option can’t go now

2. No they weren’t, the state was literally never gonna wither away at all lol

3. I was comparing income inequality in the Russian Empire and America not the Soviet Union and America

eye contact

5y

universal healthcare is “progressive”???? maybe for the US

eye contact

5y

universal healthcare is “progressive”???? maybe for the US

Enpax

5y

1. Biden’s platform is already the most progressive in a minute. Whether it’s good enough or he’s actually gonna do even half of it isn’t the point, but these ideas are gaining more on more traction. If Obamacare, which had to get rid of its public option a decade ago could pass, idk why at least a public option can’t go now

2. No they weren’t, the state was literally never gonna wither away at all lol

3. I was comparing income inequality in the Russian Empire and America not the Soviet Union and America

newgodlevel

5y

1. Lol the fact that you're even talking about Biden being "progressive" shows how f***ed the US is. What does that even mean?? Biden isn't even a social democrat and he doesn't pretend to be. Nixon was close to implementing a UBI in his time; I don't think the U.S is trending towards greater progress at all.

2. Great argument!

3. What are we supposed to compare central planning to, except a free market economy?

eye contact

5y

universal healthcare is “progressive”???? maybe for the US

newgodlevel

5y

1. Lol the fact that you're even talking about Biden being "progressive" shows how f***ed the US is. What does that even mean?? Biden isn't even a social democrat and he doesn't pretend to be. Nixon was close to implementing a UBI in his time; I don't think the U.S is trending towards greater progress at all.

2. Great argument!

3. What are we supposed to compare central planning to, except a free market economy?

spongebob

5y

i would say to your point that no i don’t consider biden progressive but at the same time there are some progressive issues on the platform that weren’t even in the conversation 10 years ago.

Now whether some of the most dire and necessary issues are acted on is a different story

and yes the US is f***ed.

And ok i’m not up on what you’re referring to with nixon and UBI but he created along with others the DEA which spawned a whole new arm of oppression and incentive for o mass incarceration by institutions so idek the point of bringing up nixon other than to say that progress has been stagnant forever in the US, which if that’s what you’re getting at, i’d agree

spongebob

5y

and in comparison to former US presidents, the platform is more progressive, (I wouldn't label it significantly progressive, but just more to the left than in the past) when pairing it up with others,

those points of contention are a few that i actually agree with @Enpax with.

At least in context directly to U.S. political platforms