What is the goal of capitalism?

[Red Front]

You are just making excuses for failure and implying it will be better next time when much smarter commies like you are in charge

But I’m not an impressionable teenager with no life experiences to guide me, and I see the sales pitch for what it really is

There's no sales pitch for you. If that were the case, I wouldn't insult you, as I have in the past.

Did capitalism replace feudalism overnight? Did the mercantile, capitalist class become the powerful industrialists of the 19th century before the technology for mass industrial production was available? It took centuries of struggle, and failures, before the capitalists beat the kings and nobles of Europe, replacing them as the new ruling elites. The capitalist Republicans didn't beat the monarchists, overnight. There were failures, defeats along the way. You are a disingenuous person, unworthy of my "sales pitch" or civility.

The Soviet Union was the first time that socialists tried to establish a socialist society and economy at a national scale. They didn't have to just face the difficulties of making a new system of production successfully meet everyone's needs, they also had to face all of the capitalist powers of the world, that were trying to destroy them. The US invaded Soviet Russia along with several other countries, in 1918. The socialists had to deal with an immense amount of resistance from both external capitalist enemies and internal enemies as well. The feudal lords i.e. Kulaks, and their "white armies", fought the red socialist army, in an extremely bloody, violent civil war, until the early 1930s. For most of the USSR's history, it was at war.

Despite this, it became an industrial, nuclear superpower, with the second-largest economy in the world. Despite all of the devastation of WW2 and the Cold War, the sanctions..etc, it managed to survive for 70+ years. That was the first attempt to create a centrally planned, state-managed socialist economy, at a national scale. You ignore all of the accomplishments of the USSR and all of the obstacles and challenges, that it faced. The only reason that I respond to you, is for the sake of others. Not you. People like you are to be ignored by socialists and confronted on the battlefield, not in civil discourse.

In the future, due to technology, socialism will become a necessity.

 

[Mac-7]

There's no sales pitch for you. If that were the case, I wouldn't insult you, as I have in the past.

Did capitalism replace feudalism overnight? Did the mercantile, capitalist class become the powerful industrialists of the 19th century before the technology for mass industrial production was available? It took centuries of struggle, and failures, before the capitalists beat the kings and nobles of Europe, replacing them as the new ruling elites. The capitalist Republicans didn't beat the monarchists, overnight. There were failures, defeats along the way. You are a disingenuous person, unworthy of my "sales pitch" or civility.

The Soviet Union was the first time that socialists tried to establish a socialist society and economy at a national scale. They didn't have to just face the difficulties of making a new system of production successfully meet everyone's needs, they also had to face all of the capitalist powers of the world, that were trying to destroy them. The US invaded Soviet Russia along with several other countries, in 1918. The socialists had to deal with an immense amount of resistance from both external capitalist enemies and internal enemies as well. The feudal lords i.e. Kulaks, and their "white armies", fought the red socialist army, in an extremely bloody, violent civil war, until the early 1930s. For most of the USSR's history, it was at war.

Despite this, it became an industrial, nuclear superpower, with the second-largest economy in the world. Despite all of the devastation of WW2 and the Cold War, the sanctions..etc, it managed to survive for 70+ years. That was the first attempt to create a centrally planned, state-managed socialist economy, at a national scale. You ignore all of the accomplishments of the USSR and all of the obstacles and challenges, that it faced. The only reason that I respond to you, is for the sake of others. Not you. People like you are to be ignored by socialists and confronted on the battlefield, not in civil discourse.

In the future, due to technology, socialism will become a necessity.

You keep missing the point

Communism will always fail because its a top down system that lacks initiative and innovation

It grinds individuals down

 

[Cellblock2429]

There's no sales pitch for you. If that were the case, I wouldn't insult you, as I have in the past.

Did capitalism replace feudalism overnight? Did the mercantile, capitalist class become the powerful industrialists of the 19th century before the technology for mass industrial production was available? It took centuries of struggle, and failures, before the capitalists beat the kings and nobles of Europe, replacing them as the new ruling elites. The capitalist Republicans didn't beat the monarchists, overnight. There were failures, defeats along the way. You are a disingenuous person, unworthy of my "sales pitch" or civility.

The Soviet Union was the first time that socialists tried to establish a socialist society and economy at a national scale. They didn't have to just face the difficulties of making a new system of production successfully meet everyone's needs, they also had to face all of the capitalist powers of the world, that were trying to destroy them. The US invaded Soviet Russia along with several other countries, in 1918. The socialists had to deal with an immense amount of resistance from both external capitalist enemies and internal enemies as well. The feudal lords i.e. Kulaks, and their "white armies", fought the red socialist army, in an extremely bloody, violent civil war, until the early 1930s. For most of the USSR's history, it was at war.

Despite this, it became an industrial, nuclear superpower, with the second-largest economy in the world. Despite all of the devastation of WW2 and the Cold War, the sanctions..etc, it managed to survive for 70+ years. That was the first attempt to create a centrally planned, state-managed socialist economy, at a national scale. You ignore all of the accomplishments of the USSR and all of the obstacles and challenges, that it faced. The only reason that I respond to you, is for the sake of others. Not you. People like you are to be ignored by socialists and confronted on the battlefield, not in civil discourse.

In the future, due to technology, socialism will become a necessity.

/——/ So why didn’t Russia or China invent the cell phone, specifically the iPhone? Because innovation and competition isn’t allowed. Commies hate competition.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry, but you're not making much sense. The motivation is to have access to the goods and services that you consume and use. When automation and artificial intelligence become advanced enough, we will be forced by necessity to adopt a non-profit, centrally planned system of production. The means of production will no longer be in the hands of a few capitalists, but publicly owned and managed. The alternative is for everyone to be dirt poor, living on a UBI (Universal Basic Income), and a few billionaires owning all of the robots and technology. Everyone who once sold their labor power to a capitalist will become worthless, under a capitalist system. We will be living under a type of techno-feudalism. I prefer high-tech central planning, in a socialist economy, where we all own the technology together.

The motivation is to have access to the goods and services that you consume and use.

Something communism could never achieve.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not at all, it turned Russia into an industrial juggernaut and the second-largest economy in the world. A nuclear superpower. All of the Western academics, the experts, who study Soviet history, with few exceptions, admit that the USSR was the second largest economy in the world.

IMF, WORLD BANK AND UN DATA:

View attachment 802210


You can deny it, like a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist, but that is the consensus.
​

For the sake of argument, let's assume that central planning didn't work in the past, under more primitive conditions, lack of technology..etc. Why would you assume it won't work now or in the future when we have the technology to do all of the accounting, logistics, and manufacturing? Your assumption that it will never work on account of the Soviet Union being defeated is based on poor logic.

Not at all, it turned Russia into an industrial juggernaut and the second-largest economy in the world. A nuclear superpower.

What did they spend on their military? 40% of GDP? More?
What did the "industrial juggernaut" build, besides military equipment?
Their economy was never near the size claimed.
And Reagan crushed them. Haha.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that central planning didn't work in the past, under more primitive conditions, lack of technology..etc.

Etc? Like a massive police state and mass graves and gulags?
Yeah, safe to say it didn't work. No assumption needed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 802220

The Shrinking Middle Class

Whether looking at the past 50 years in the United States or at the recent global impact of the pandemic, we see a shrinking middle class.

econlife.com

​

Thanks for the link.
Do you have one that helps your claim?

 

[Red Front]

Thanks for the link.
Do you have one that helps your claim?

Why didn't that one help you?

 

[Red Front]

Not at all, it turned Russia into an industrial juggernaut and the second-largest economy in the world. A nuclear superpower.

What did they spend on their military? 40% of GDP? More?
What did the "industrial juggernaut" build, besides military equipment?
Their economy was never near the size claimed.
And Reagan crushed them. Haha.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that central planning didn't work in the past, under more primitive conditions, lack of technology..etc.

Etc? Like a massive police state and mass graves and gulags?
Yeah, safe to say it didn't work. No assumption needed.

The Soviet Union did indeed allocate a considerable portion of its GDP to military spending, but it's important to recognize that this was primarily a reaction to the geopolitical context of the Cold War rather than an inherent characteristic of communism.

On the subject of production, it's a misrepresentation to assert that the USSR exclusively manufactured military equipment. In truth, the Soviet Union made significant strides in a myriad of sectors. They built the world's first nuclear power plant in Obninsk, engineered a robust subway system in Moscow, constructed numerous large-scale hydroelectric power stations, and innovated in space technology, education, and heavy industries such as steel and energy ("Obninsk: Number One," International Atomic Energy Agency; "Bratsk Hydroelectric Power Station, Russia," Power Technology; "Moscow Metro," Encyclopædia Britannica).

Despite the formidable challenge of transitioning from an under-developed agrarian society with widespread illiteracy, the Soviet Union transformed into an industrial powerhouse and, for several decades during the Cold War, the second-largest economy globally (Maddison, Angus. "The world economy: historical statistics" / also UN, IMF, WORLD BANK DATA confirms that the Soviets had the second largest economy in the world).

Furthermore, the USSR achieved this in the wake of unimaginable devastation inflicted by World War II. The Soviets, who bore the brunt of Nazi aggression (seven Nazi soldiers out of every ten, were fighting in Soviet Russia - four million Nazi Germans invaded Soviet Russia), had to rebuild their country from the ashes without the benefits of an American Marshall Plan (Western Europe and Japan got plenty of help from Uncle Sam after the war), instead relying on their internal resources and determination (they picked themselves up by their bootstraps and became the second largest economy in the world).

The United States came out of WW2 unscathed compared to Russia, Europe, and Japan. Notice how the USA is between two vast oceans/walls, that protect it.

Ascribing the dissolution of the USSR solely to Reagan's influence oversimplifies a complex historical event shaped by various internal and external factors.

Regarding the so-called 'massive police state, mass graves, and gulags,' most of the information we have on that from the Soviet archives, doesn't correlate with the Western, Cold War rhetoric. A lot of the claims against Stalin and how the Soviets dealt with its internal saboteurs and enemies are exaggerated. Capitalist colonialism, and its current hegemonic globalism, not to speak of American imperialism, is much deadlier than Stalin or the Soviet Union.

​

Soviet central planning, without the benefit of modern, powerful computers or 21st-century technology, brought successes, rapid industrialization, advancements in space technology, and the provision of universal healthcare and education. With advancements in technology and improved economic understanding, there is the potential to learn from past missteps and develop a more effective and equitable central planning system for the future.

Finally, it's conjecture, not fact, to claim that communism will never work in the future. Given ongoing advancements in AI and automation, the conditions for communism's ultimate success may well be in place now and certainly in the not-too-distant future. Advanced robotics and artificial intelligence, are the arch menace of capitalism, whereas it's the close ally of communism. Communists love production technology that replaces human labor and drudgery, where capitalism is built upon human labor and drudgery.

 

[Red Front]

The motivation is to have access to the goods and services that you consume and use.

Something communism could never achieve.

In response to the claim that communism couldn't achieve the motivation for people to have access to goods and services, it's necessary to point out that the Soviet Union indeed managed to provide consumer goods to its citizens, significantly improving the standard of living compared to the Tsarist era.

Under Tsarist Russia, most of the population were peasants living in abject poverty. The industrial advancements and economic planning under the USSR brought about an improved standard of living, with access to education, healthcare, and other basic services, along with consumer goods, that were previously out of reach for many.

Furthermore, the future promises new possibilities for communist societies, thanks to advancements in artificial intelligence and automation. Autonomous machines, capable of operating 24/7 without the limitations and needs of human labor, hold the potential to create an abundance of goods and services. Such technology has the potential to eliminate poverty and ensure everyone's needs are met, which aligns with the foundational goals of communism.

Critics often argue from a place of static analysis, looking at the past and present without considering the transformative potential of the future. But the reality is that we are on the cusp of a technological revolution that could redefine our economic and social structures.

Capitalism, despite its successes in certain contexts, is rooted in a system of production and labor that will inevitably, due to advanced technology, become obsolete. The necessity for humans to sell their labor to capitalists to survive is a core aspect of capitalism and will become irrelevant in a world where machines can carry out most production tasks. Todd is unable or most likely just unwilling (he's suffering from denial) to acknowledge this simple, obvious fact.

Socialism, and eventually communism (the final stage and objective of socialism), will be the systems of production of the future. Economies that aren't based on the exploitation of human labor, but on the equitable distribution of the abundant resources produced by advanced machinery. Everyone will have an abundance of consumer goods in a modern communist economy, that is mostly automated by the latest technology.

Todd disingenuously overlooks the considerable achievements under socialism and fails to take into account the potential of our rapidly evolving technology. Far from being a failed system of the past, modern, high-tech communism is the obvious path to a prosperous and equitable future.

 

[Red Front]

You keep missing the point

Communism will always fail because its a top down system that lacks initiative and innovation

It grinds individuals down

The claim that communism invariably lacks initiative and innovation is a misconception. Historically, countries with elements of communism, like the Soviet Union, have displayed significant technological and industrial advancements, proving that innovative capacity exists under communism.

While it's been argued bu capitalist apologists and polemicists that communism 'grinds individuals down', it's important to note that capitalism can also be grinding, with many employees working long hours for low pay and little job security. In contrast, communism aims to create an equitable society where everyone's needs are met, especially, food, housing, healthcare, and education.

The characterization of communism as a 'top-down' system fails to consider alternative models of implementation. For instance, production can be arranged through a cooperative partnership between a democratic government and worker-run enterprises. This is different from a purely central command model.

Furthermore, advanced automation and AI, which are an obvious threat to capitalism, due to job displacement and exacerbated wealth inequality, are great opportunities under communism to increase production and improve everyone's standard of living. These technologies will significantly reduce human labor, freeing people from the drudgery of work and enabling them to pursue their passions. This aligns well with the communist ideal of a more equitable distribution of resources and a society free from scarcity and poverty.

PS: Government is responsible for most of our advanced technology, not private industry:

​

 

[Cellblock2429]

The Soviet Union did indeed allocate a considerable portion of its GDP to military spending, but it's important to recognize that this was primarily a reaction to the geopolitical context of the Cold War rather than an inherent characteristic of communism.

On the subject of production, it's a misrepresentation to assert that the USSR exclusively manufactured military equipment. In truth, the Soviet Union made significant strides in a myriad of sectors. They built the world's first nuclear power plant in Obninsk, engineered a robust subway system in Moscow, constructed numerous large-scale hydroelectric power stations, and innovated in space technology, education, and heavy industries such as steel and energy ("Obninsk: Number One," International Atomic Energy Agency; "Bratsk Hydroelectric Power Station, Russia," Power Technology; "Moscow Metro," Encyclopædia Britannica).

Despite the formidable challenge of transitioning from an under-developed agrarian society with widespread illiteracy, the Soviet Union transformed into an industrial powerhouse and, for several decades during the Cold War, the second-largest economy globally (Maddison, Angus. "The world economy: historical statistics" / also UN, IMF, WORLD BANK DATA confirms that the Soviets had the second largest economy in the world).

Furthermore, the USSR achieved this in the wake of unimaginable devastation inflicted by World War II. The Soviets, who bore the brunt of Nazi aggression (seven Nazi soldiers out of every ten, were fighting in Soviet Russia - four million Nazi Germans invaded Soviet Russia), had to rebuild their country from the ashes without the benefits of an American Marshall Plan (Western Europe and Japan got plenty of help from Uncle Sam after the war), instead relying on their internal resources and determination (they picked themselves up by their bootstraps and became the second largest economy in the world).

The United States came out of WW2 unscathed compared to Russia, Europe, and Japan. Notice how the USA is between two vast oceans/walls, that protect it.

View attachment 802466

Ascribing the dissolution of the USSR solely to Reagan's influence oversimplifies a complex historical event shaped by various internal and external factors.

Regarding the so-called 'massive police state, mass graves, and gulags,' most of the information we have on that from the Soviet archives, doesn't correlate with the Western, Cold War rhetoric. A lot of the claims against Stalin and how the Soviets dealt with its internal saboteurs and enemies are exaggerated. Capitalist colonialism, and its current hegemonic globalism, not to speak of American imperialism, is much deadlier than Stalin or the Soviet Union.

​

Soviet central planning, without the benefit of modern, powerful computers or 21st-century technology, brought successes, rapid industrialization, advancements in space technology, and the provision of universal healthcare and education. With advancements in technology and improved economic understanding, there is the potential to learn from past missteps and develop a more effective and equitable central planning system for the future.

Finally, it's conjecture, not fact, to claim that communism will never work in the future. Given ongoing advancements in AI and automation, the conditions for communism's ultimate success may well be in place now and certainly in the not-too-distant future. Advanced robotics and artificial intelligence, are the arch menace of capitalism, whereas it's the close ally of communism. Communists love production technology that replaces human labor and drudgery, where capitalism is built upon human labor and drudgery.

/——-/ Put all the lip stick you want on that Communist slave state, but it doesn’t change a thing. They had to build a wall to keep people from leaving.

 

[Mac-7]

The claim that communism invariably lacks initiative and innovation is a misconception. Historically, countries with elements of communism, like the Soviet Union, have displayed significant technological and industrial advancements, proving that innovative capacity exists under communism.

While it's been argued bu capitalist apologists and polemicists that communism 'grinds individuals down', it's important to note that capitalism can also be grinding, with many employees working long hours for low pay and little job security. In contrast, communism aims to create an equitable society where everyone's needs are met, especially, food, housing, healthcare, and education.

The characterization of communism as a 'top-down' system fails to consider alternative models of implementation. For instance, production can be arranged through a cooperative partnership between a democratic government and worker-run enterprises. This is different from a purely central command model.

Furthermore, advanced automation and AI, which are an obvious threat to capitalism, due to job displacement and exacerbated wealth inequality, are great opportunities under communism to increase production and improve everyone's standard of living. These technologies will significantly reduce human labor, freeing people from the drudgery of work and enabling them to pursue their passions. This aligns well with the communist ideal of a more equitable distribution of resources and a society free from scarcity and poverty.

PS: Government is responsible for most of our advanced technology, not private industry:

​

The Soviets invested much effort to keep up with the West but couldnt do it

Because not enough people were incentivized to excel

Under capitalism millions of citizens contribute

 

[Red Front]

The Soviets invested much effort to keep up with the West but couldnt do it

Because not enough people were incentivized to excel

Under capitalism millions of citizens contribute

Claim: "The Soviets invested much effort to keep up with the West but couldn't do it because not enough people were incentivized to excel."

Refutation: This argument oversimplifies the complexities of the Soviet Union's economic system and ignores key factors that influenced its development.

1. 
   Historical Context: The Soviet Union, a new socialist country and society, emerged from the devastation of World War I, the Russian Revolution, and the subsequent civil war. Rebuilding the economy and modernizing its industry was a formidable task. Despite these challenges, the Soviet Union achieved rapid industrialization, scientific advancements, and significant improvements in education, healthcare, and social welfare.
   • Devastation of World War II: The Soviet Union suffered immense human and material losses during World War II, with estimates of over 26 million Soviet citizens losing their lives. The war heavily impacted the country's infrastructure, industrial capacity, and agricultural resources, necessitating significant reconstruction efforts.
   • Cold War and Geopolitical Constraints: The Soviet Union faced intense competition and confrontation with the United States during the Cold War. This rivalry involved military build-up, ideological conflicts, and economic competition. The pressures of the arms race, coupled with economic sanctions and trade restrictions, affected the Soviet Union's economic development.
   • Lack of Marshal Plan Assistance: Unlike Western Europe, which received substantial aid through the Marshall Plan for post-war reconstruction, the Soviet Union did not benefit from similar external assistance. The absence of such support placed additional strain on the country's resources and slowed its recovery efforts.
2. Technological Achievements: Despite all of the above aforementioned obstacles and challenges for the new nation (the Soviet Union), the Soviets made substantial progress in various fields, including space exploration, nuclear energy, and military technology. Notable achievements such as launching the first satellite (Sputnik) and sending the first human (Yuri Gagarin) into space demonstrate the country's scientific and technological capabilities.
3. Human Capital: The Soviet Union prioritized education and invested heavily in its workforce, resulting in a highly educated population and skilled workforce. This emphasis on education and training contributed to significant advancements in science, mathematics, and engineering.

It is essential to consider a comprehensive range of factors when assessing the Soviet Union's economic performance rather than reducing it to a single cause. Understanding the complexities of its economic system, historical context, and geopolitical dynamics provides a more nuanced perspective. Grow up Mak-7.

References:

• Kotz, D.M., & Weir, F. (2007). Russia's Path from Gorbachev to Putin: The Demise of the Soviet System and the New Russia. Routledge.
• Harrison, M. (2013). The Soviet Economy: Theory and Practice. Routledge.
• Kotz, D.M., & McDonough, T. (2012). The Soviet Union's Demise and the Rise of China. Routledge.

 

[Mac-7]

Claim: "The Soviets invested much effort to keep up with the West but couldn't do it because not enough people were incentivized to excel."

Refutation: This argument oversimplifies the complexities of the Soviet Union's economic system and ignores key factors that influenced its development.

1. 
   Historical Context: The Soviet Union, a new socialist country and society, emerged from the devastation of World War I, the Russian Revolution, and the subsequent civil war. Rebuilding the economy and modernizing its industry was a formidable task. Despite these challenges, the Soviet Union achieved rapid industrialization, scientific advancements, and significant improvements in education, healthcare, and social welfare.
   • Devastation of World War II: The Soviet Union suffered immense human and material losses during World War II, with estimates of over 26 million Soviet citizens losing their lives. The war heavily impacted the country's infrastructure, industrial capacity, and agricultural resources, necessitating significant reconstruction efforts.
   • Cold War and Geopolitical Constraints: The Soviet Union faced intense competition and confrontation with the United States during the Cold War. This rivalry involved military build-up, ideological conflicts, and economic competition. The pressures of the arms race, coupled with economic sanctions and trade restrictions, affected the Soviet Union's economic development.
   • Lack of Marshal Plan Assistance: Unlike Western Europe, which received substantial aid through the Marshall Plan for post-war reconstruction, the Soviet Union did not benefit from similar external assistance. The absence of such support placed additional strain on the country's resources and slowed its recovery efforts.
2. Technological Achievements: Despite all of the above aforementioned obstacles and challenges for the new nation (the Soviet Union), the Soviets made substantial progress in various fields, including space exploration, nuclear energy, and military technology. Notable achievements such as launching the first satellite (Sputnik) and sending the first human (Yuri Gagarin) into space demonstrate the country's scientific and technological capabilities.
3. Human Capital: The Soviet Union prioritized education and invested heavily in its workforce, resulting in a highly educated population and skilled workforce. This emphasis on education and training contributed to significant advancements in science, mathematics, and engineering.

It is essential to consider a comprehensive range of factors when assessing the Soviet Union's economic performance rather than reducing it to a single cause. Understanding the complexities of its economic system, historical context, and geopolitical dynamics provides a more nuanced perspective. Grow up Mak-7.

References:

• Kotz, D.M., & Weir, F. (2007). Russia's Path from Gorbachev to Putin: The Demise of the Soviet System and the New Russia. Routledge.
• Harrison, M. (2013). The Soviet Economy: Theory and Practice. Routledge.
• Kotz, D.M., & McDonough, T. (2012). The Soviet Union's Demise and the Rise of China. Routledge.

So why did russian communism ultimately fail?

Not enough handouts from the West?

According to you communism is the best system but the russian people didnt like the poverty it created compared to the West

They didnt want to slave away for the communist masters with no chance to improve their lives

 

[Red Front]

So why did russian communism ultimately fail?

Not enough handouts from the West?

According to you communism is the best system but the russian people didnt like the poverty it created compared to the West

They didnt want to slave away for the communist masters with no chance to improve their lives

Mac-7 ignored all of the points that I made in my last post.

First, the question of why the USSR dissolved is a complex one that scholars still debate. It is simplistic to claim it failed solely because of internal economic factors. The historical and geopolitical context was undoubtedly a significant factor, including the long-lasting impact of the devastating invasion by Nazi Germany in WWII.

It's worth reminding that the Soviet Union bore the brunt of Nazi Germany's onslaught, enduring a cataclysmic loss of life and infrastructure. The USSR lost an estimated 26 million people, a staggering 14% of its population. Contrast this with the U.S., which, despite its contributions to the war effort, lost significantly fewer lives approximately 460,000, or less than 0.5% of its population.

The USSR had to rebuild almost from scratch, picking itself up by its own bootstraps, unlike Western Europe and Japan, which received significant aid through the Marshall Plan and other U.S. initiatives. These factors undoubtedly impacted the economic disparity between the USSR and the West. Despite this, the USSR grew its economy after WW2, making it the second largest economy in the world, with the US having the largest economy.

As for the allegation of handouts, it's ironic, considering the frequency with which capitalist economies resort to government assistance to prevent economic collapse. We see this in the recent calls from billionaires for a UBI or "Universal Basic Income", a direct government handout to everyone in response to the automation and job loss caused by AI advancements.

This is capitalism reacting to a crisis of its own making. The system that thrives on the exploitation of human labor is now grappling with the advent of machines that can do the same work without requiring wages, benefits, or rest.

The sweeping change brought about by AI and automation doesn't threaten communism it rather offers a promise of a society where resources are more equitably distributed, human labor is minimized, and everyone's needs are met. That's not a system in crisis. That's a system ready for the future! We, communists, love advanced technology that automates production as much as possible. We don't rely on wage labor like capitalists do, hence automation is our ally.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Claim: "The Soviets invested much effort to keep up with the West but couldn't do it because not enough people were incentivized to excel."

Refutation: This argument oversimplifies the complexities of the Soviet Union's economic system and ignores key factors that influenced its development.

1. 
   Historical Context: The Soviet Union, a new socialist country and society, emerged from the devastation of World War I, the Russian Revolution, and the subsequent civil war. Rebuilding the economy and modernizing its industry was a formidable task. Despite these challenges, the Soviet Union achieved rapid industrialization, scientific advancements, and significant improvements in education, healthcare, and social welfare.
   • Devastation of World War II: The Soviet Union suffered immense human and material losses during World War II, with estimates of over 26 million Soviet citizens losing their lives. The war heavily impacted the country's infrastructure, industrial capacity, and agricultural resources, necessitating significant reconstruction efforts.
   • Cold War and Geopolitical Constraints: The Soviet Union faced intense competition and confrontation with the United States during the Cold War. This rivalry involved military build-up, ideological conflicts, and economic competition. The pressures of the arms race, coupled with economic sanctions and trade restrictions, affected the Soviet Union's economic development.
   • Lack of Marshal Plan Assistance: Unlike Western Europe, which received substantial aid through the Marshall Plan for post-war reconstruction, the Soviet Union did not benefit from similar external assistance. The absence of such support placed additional strain on the country's resources and slowed its recovery efforts.
2. Technological Achievements: Despite all of the above aforementioned obstacles and challenges for the new nation (the Soviet Union), the Soviets made substantial progress in various fields, including space exploration, nuclear energy, and military technology. Notable achievements such as launching the first satellite (Sputnik) and sending the first human (Yuri Gagarin) into space demonstrate the country's scientific and technological capabilities.
3. Human Capital: The Soviet Union prioritized education and invested heavily in its workforce, resulting in a highly educated population and skilled workforce. This emphasis on education and training contributed to significant advancements in science, mathematics, and engineering.

It is essential to consider a comprehensive range of factors when assessing the Soviet Union's economic performance rather than reducing it to a single cause. Understanding the complexities of its economic system, historical context, and geopolitical dynamics provides a more nuanced perspective. Grow up Mak-7.

References:

• Kotz, D.M., & Weir, F. (2007). Russia's Path from Gorbachev to Putin: The Demise of the Soviet System and the New Russia. Routledge.
• Harrison, M. (2013). The Soviet Economy: Theory and Practice. Routledge.
• Kotz, D.M., & McDonough, T. (2012). The Soviet Union's Demise and the Rise of China. Routledge.

/——-/ Do you know what you call someone who defends communism? A useful idiot.

 

[Ringo]

 

[Red Front]

Good post. One of the reasons we don't have modern, clean, and safe nuclear plants throughout this country, providing us with all of the electricity we will ever need, is due to the capitalist pursuit of profits. We're stuck with dirty, old coal and other fossil fuels $$$$$$$$$$$$. It's all about money and power.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Good post. One of the reasons we don't have modern, clean, and safe nuclear plants throughout this country, providing us with all of the electricity we will ever need, is due to the capitalist pursuit of profits. We're stuck with dirty, old coal and other fossil fuels $$$$$$$$$$$$. It's all about money and power.

/-----/ "is due to the capitalist pursuit of profits."
Absolute horseshyt. Nuclear energy is promoted by private sector companies that design, build, and sell it to power companies. It's the left that hates and resists this safe, clean power source. Libs also hate hydroelectric plants.
Fairness in energy policy would help nuclear succeed instead of decline.

The most climate-friendly reliable source of power is nuclear energy, yet environmental activists largely campaign against nuclear. Michael Shellenberger shares the fascinating history and motives of activists’ opposition in, “CLEAN ENERGY IS ON THE DECLINE — HERE’S WHY, AND WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT IT,” in Public Utilities Fortnightly.

Environmental Activists' Nuclear Opposition Explained - Georgia Public Policy Foundation

Independent, Non-Partisan and Market-Oriented Policy Solutions

www.georgiapolicy.org

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why didn't that one help you?

It's your claim, I don't need help.