What are the actual problems with the USSR system besides le 200 gorrilion dead kulaks...

...

no worker control

Attached: 1427933903029s.jpg (250x233, 4.3K)

Just listen to yourself. You can't abolish commodities and wage labour. Markets are the best system we can have.

Do you realize that the problem with socialism in the 20th century is the problem you will always run into when striving for communism? Centrally planning an economy and paying everyone the same amount does not provide people with the motivation necessary for high productivity. In the USSR, people would fuck around all day and do the bare minimum because they knew that they wouldn't get anything for working hard, so why would they? People don't want to work for the "benefit of mankind".

Attached: markets efficient.jpg (960x794, 78.81K)

You think it's a waste but in reality it's the trade-off we get for having innovation and progress. I don't want to live in some boring agrarian commune, I like SpaceX and lab-grown meat.

Indeed. Market Socialism ftw. Thotskyites and Stalinfags get out.

Exterminatus.

Attached: karl marx shiggy diggy.jpg (255x206, 12.55K)

How many more attempts do they need before they realize that it doesn't work?
lol

Explain

Attached: mutualism.jpg (1023x536, 157.16K)

Markets in a post scarcity society (which we could have RIGHT NOW if it wasn't for capitalist bourgs hoarding resources hostage for capital) aren't needed. For anything you need you will just have it. Do you really need 80 brands of toothpaste with identical ingredients but different packaging? I guess there would be de-facto markets for "luxury" goods like custom made violins or something, but it would be a market of what you want, not what you could afford.

The real problems came from outside interference, but there were internal issues like trying to coup Stalin (by the NKVD I believe), which affected the party in their decision to resist democracy, even though Stalin supported it. You had issues with party people eventually getting out of hand and ruining everything, more or less. I can't help but see Stalin as someone who was far too easy handed. He didn't collectivize as hard as he could of, and he didn't make the party democratic enough. But to see these as straight failures is ignorant of the historical context.

I'd rather not have more capitalism, thanks.

Attached: 1520182201079.gif (480x238, 415.41K)

My problem with this is that it seems like capping off on progress. I don't want to take the current stage of production and fortify it. I want an economy that continuously grows and innovates new technologies, medicine, transportation, etc. Those 80 brands of toothpaste appear to be doing nothing, but that's how many attempts it takes to perfect and create the one superior godly toothpaste. Obviously toothpaste is just a euphemism but the same concept applies to more important things like, for example, spironolactone and estrogen medication. Do you think that HRT would have ever been possible in a million years in the USSR? The problem with your idea of socialism is that it piggybacks off of capitalist production. I say just keep the system now and forget about this perpetual-motion machine you call ideal.

Attached: futuristic_city__1920x1080__by_themastern1-d7gy22g.jpg (1024x576, 125.95K)

Pure ideology. The superior toothpaste does not exist, nor does competition between brands bring us towards a better toothpaste - the only innovation being stimulated here is any innovation that will increase profits, through lowering costs or increasing market share. And the best place to go to lower costs is to increase the rate of exploitation of the worker.

The only thing ideological here is this. Competition is what created the computers we are typing this on. Trial and error is how shit gets done, not just in the economy but in every walk of life. The animal kingdom is chaotic; violence and tranquility; life and death. Natural selection is how the universe operates, and thus the economy should emulate it; as above, so below.

Attached: cc6f773bd504e42cea669f37f6fb206e.png (600x600, 138.66K)

You didn't read:
Under capitalism it is only the profit motive. The internet we are using right now comes from a military program so America can better coordinate when conducting their imperialist wars to once again secure and increase profit. There does not need to be one firm producing toothpaste under socialism, but how much resources are we wasting producing so much of the same thing because of capitalist markets? Do we really need all those firms and their infrastructure using tons of fuel to deliver the same product with their only difference being marketing?

Attached: 6b795a88abf5ffa38de3d6e6f8f2d3c41190609a3edae7d27a4f92ba37006d8e.png (434x370, 73.44K)

So what do you propose as an alternate motive? I promise you that a gift economy or communal economy will never work.

Obvious false flag. Fuck outta here, Republican.

Attached: cover-r4x3w1000-59e64a2c27218-000-pz7n1-1.jpg (1000x750, 67.73K)

Actually implementing planning was one of the best thing the Soviet Union did, market reforms among the worst. Neck yourself.

You deserve to get your face beaten into a pulp for this post.
You sound like a fucking end of history neoliberal.
HOLY SHIT you know fucking NOTHING about the USSR, you're just projecting the reactionary strawman of communism onto it. Stalin actually implemented a piece-wage system, also look up Stakhanovism. The USSR had wage differences between different professions.
Altruism actually does play a part. No communist believes people will only work for the common good, this is another strawman. It's simply something which plays a part, we still believe that rewarding people for work is the main motivation.

BASED Elon pissing away tons of government subsidies to send a car into space

Attached: yugoslavia.mp4 (586x522 74.41 KB, 42.85K)

youtube.com/watch?v=fvRfhakbEVE

This is one of many ways.

Lots and lots of consumer products were produced but the goverment could only regulate the prices and production of like 20,000 of them and the five year plan mentioned like 20. This means that lots of consumer goods were produced near randomly or not at all.

Too focused on consumer goods.

The party was a mistake

make up your mind

"Socialism in one country" is stupid and will never work. Also he turned many East Bloc countries into neo-colonized states and now people think that's what communism is, just to fund a dick waving contest with the US that they could have won if Stalin wasn't such an autist.

Not nuking the USA was a huge problem imo.

That's strange. I don't know how I feel about just making up some new system of digital good-boy points like this. How would you propose creating such an economy?

I hope you have your Stalinist revolution so that you instantly feel the regret afterwards of creating such a terrible system that DOES NOT WORK.

Attached: 3582e21dad9237cc9bf74717123e2b44.jpg (916x960, 115.79K)

You're on thin ice, obvious recent Zig Forums convert. Best start ridding yourself of anti-communist propaganda.

Attached: f66352ba5b751c3deb28e69a36f53d62-imagepng.png (460x428, 294.76K)

I'm not necessarily anti-communist. A lot of you guys just haven't figured out yet that what we had in the 20th century is farthest thing from liberation, and one of the major problems was central planning. Markets are magic, comrade. With the right guidance we can become turn it into the most liberating system the earth has ever seen.

Attached: 5cf6e1cb1bffefa574f954e3bc4ab46a.jpg (1920x865, 215K)

tito was a mistake

1. Read Cockshott.
2. Planning worked in the USSR. It brough a backwards peasant country into the modern day in like 30 years.
3. Read Marx. All forms of Markets are shit
4. Fuck off

Attached: 05902ad6926c0744ceef9f0f9db6cfef362a7260ec3338e2056d787c050c0090.png (566x328, 125.65K)

Well this conversation is going fucking nowhere. You need theory and a history lesson beyond just regurgitating the tired propaganda that they fed you in school and the media.

Imagine actually being this delusional.

I used to make this argument all the time when I was larping the USSR. I have read Marx, I was raised my Marxists. Markets are shit when compared to a fantasy alternative economy where everybody shares and gets along and holds hands.

...

Libertarians have some good ideas but they, like most radical leftists, don't understand human nature. I know, I know, nobody on the life likes to hear those two little words. It's because you are all so god damn nihilistic and you think that there is no over-arching order to the universe; that you can just bend nature to your will and ignore anything remotely metaphysical.

*Left* not "life"

jesus christ have you never had a job

I have. It wasn't so bad. Would have been better if it was a Co-op. My sister works in a co-op and it's great. Very productive.

oh fuck off

You realize you have that completely backward, right, that denial of over-arching metaphysical order means that you can not completely bend nature to your will

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

youtube.com/watch?v=FRTsInTXAgk&t=392s

Attached: quote-if-there-is-no-god-everything-is-permitted-fyodor-dostoevsky-52492.jpg (850x400, 39.03K)

unbelievable. if you unironically believe in this shit and have read marx, you have to re-read him, or join a fucking bookclub or something.
Market "socialists" are going to be the death of any movement for sure.

Attached: a5a3fee36101f9cfb38976faba2bce8e001016ed78237e4a4f406db151e20c87.png (536x654, 197.85K)

Christ just listen to yourself. You do realize it's possible to read something, understand it, and disagree with it? Fundamentalist Ideologues incapable of thinking critically are going to be the death of any movement for sure.

I have a sneaking suspicion you might not understand something if you continue to peddle the theories that people specifically use to discredit radical ideas when they themselves don't understand this.

Although I guess this does rely on you being a marxian Socialist, which is what I thought most Times identified as. Might be wrong

Attached: c391KfA.png (462x606, 365.02K)

There isn't, fam. Beyond physics, there isn't. No grand purpose, no grand order.

Idk. I was a Hegelian Marxist for a long time, and I still somewhat identify as such. There's just something a little bit naive about thinking that we can unite the entire world as one network of communally organized gift economies. And a lot of Marxists seem to justify their ideas with a "once we get power we can accomplish anything" mindset.
A state can never "wither away". Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. For leftists to be so in denial about the existence of human nature is frightening. To claim that our nature is nothing but putty for the molding is one just as dark as Nazism.

Don't cut yourself on that edge, kid.

Attached: UZ1vE361a-8w1DG4iF7Vvtw_ucDQGeKVx3mtb6u5wAk.jpg (960x720, 169.13K)

You might as well be a christian 08 republican

A lot of IT (incl. the internet itself) was created through gov. funding, ya ideologue.

lol do you think we would have Zig Forums, gaming computers, and anything more than just a government communications network if markets didn't exist?

yes
things have been created in non-competitive non-market environments for quite some time now.

No. The answer is no. You are a fucking lunatic.

Attached: z1QRN1a0WnOP0zXEX-GuVnu7Nkqpe2RQRM3PFRtlnfg.jpg (720x480, 31.39K)

And what is stopping these things from being created under non-market conditions?

Also I feel that it's worth pointing out that markets have left us in a dead end with computer design.The sheer investment done into binary computers at this point has locked us into transistor-based computing and stopped the USSR-developed balanced-ternary diode-based computers that had the potential to do the same level of computing power for cheaper, with smaller computing units, with less materials.

Except marxists don't advocate this, it's an anarchist thing. Marxists typically advocate planned production in both phases of communism, with a lower phase where work is rewarded with a kind of non-circulating labour credit that may eventually give way to free consumption of goods as the means of production are further developed.

You unironically need to be forced to read Towards a New Socialism at gun point.

or how about the fact that Westinghouse nearly went totally broke trying to support Tesla's provably superior AC electricity and the only fact we aren't still saddled with the clunkiness of Edison's DC power transmission is literally because Edison threw a bitchfit spergout because he was butthurt about the fact that he actually had to compete with someone else? Had he not made serious marketing mistakes he would have won the war simply because he was able to bankroll his own design better than Westinghouse was and we would have been stuck with the awkwardness of DC power over long distances likely even today.

Technically they do. That would be, what I assume, late stage communism would look like. Or it could be a one-world government under late-stage communism, which would be the worst mistake of mankind.

Or what about the fact that markets still make it profitable to waste valuable things in times of need? There's no shortage of cases of people wasting food in the middle of famines (see most capitalist famines) just so that they can keep prices jacked up.

This is still just playing softball with you.

Because markets still don't fundamentally address the issue of centralization of power and decisionmaking and no amount of co-operative worker ownership changes that very simple fact, and it's blatantly obvious if you take one look at how a market fundamentally operates from the arguments of its own supporters (namely that "the best product" will inevitably end up with the controlling market share and is thus able to out-produce competition, leading to a monopoly) without sweeping all the problems under the rug like they do.

Maybe you should pick up a fucking history book instead of trusting in metaphysics to solve your problems for you.

No, we really don't. I think this particular misunderstanding exists because people fail to understand what a state is in the marxist sense (organised class repression). When we speak of the withering of the state, it doesn't mean the disappearance of economic governance, but rather politically governance.

Attached: frt.png (576x788, 91.61K)

Mate, do you even have an argument? Or are you just going act like a child who has been told they can't eat cake for breakfast?

I'll talk to you, but not that anarchist idiot.

What is Towards a New Socialism about?

Mostly about using computer networks for economic calculation and planning, as well as some criticisms of the soviet union. It contains one of the most thorough refutations of the idea that rational economic calculation is impossible that I have ever read, while still being fairly accessible.

Not an argument.

ML reaching its theoretical limits leading to revisionism. You need mass movements to act against shitty parts of the party.

Attached: 69c7b9a0b8a24d78de59b48463d37e6022d9caae113c704bcf56910365d84d14.jpg (320x213, 14.64K)

Why bother pointing out that you used to make that argument if you aren't even going to argue against it

Attached: Stalin.jpg (960x823, 145.31K)

Maotism is retarded and revisionist.

YOU FUCKING TRIGGERED ME SIONISTA

Attached: AAAAAAAAAA.jpg (711x960, 39.19K)

This is not the place for you, anti-communist faggot.

Maoism stood in the face of capitalist realism and end of history and proudly declared no, can you say the same ML?